^ 

LIBRARY 

•IF    THE 

UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA. 

GIFT  OK 


Received 
Accessions  No. 


, 1886 

Shelf  No. 


fc 


THE 

RELIGION    OF    THE    CHRIST 


THE 


RELIGION  OF  THE  CHRIST 


ITS  HISTORIC  AND  LITERARY  DEVELOPMENT 

CONSIDERED  AS  AN  EVIDENCE 

OF  ITS   ORIGIN 


THE   BAMPTON   LECTURES   FOR    1874 


BY   THE 


REV.    STANLEY    LEATHES,    M.A. 

\\ 

MINISTER   OF   ST.    PHILIP  S,    REGENT   STREET  ; 
PROFESSOR    OF    HEBREW,     KING'S    COLLEGE,     LONDON 


<£bition 


JReto  gnrfc 
POTT,     YOUNG,     AND     COMPANY 

COOPER  UNION,   FOURTH   AVENUE 
MDCCCLXXVI 


CONTENTS. 

PREFACE  .  .  .  ...     Pageix. 

LECTURE  I. 
Anticipation  of  tije  eijrist  in  ?|fatf)en  Rations. 

"  As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water  brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  after 

Thee,  0  God."— PSALM  xlii.  1. 

Permanent  interest  of  Christianity— Reasons  of  this— Comprehensiveness 
of  the  name — Limited  by  its  relation  to  Christ— What  the  name  of 
Christ  implies — Its  hearing  on  the  Gentile  world — Witness  of  the 
Gentile  world — First  by  sacrifice — Secondly  by  mythology — Methods 
of  interpreting  mythology— The  solar  theory— Legends  not  so  under- 
stood— The  teaching  implied— Its  result — Insufficient  to  awaken 
definite  hopes— Truth  in  all  religions— This  truth  revealed,  not  dis- 
covered— How  did  the  idea  of  God  first  arise? — The  idea  of  sin — 
God  has  given  us  the  power  to  recognise  a  revelation  when  given — 
As  He  has  shown  us  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  which  is 
not  derived  from  nature,  only  to  be  expressed  by  analogies  derived  from 
nature — Mythology  points  to  a  declension — The  origin  of  Christianity 
therefore  is  not  to  be  referred  to  mythology — Mythology  gives  its 
witness  to  the  need  for  Christianity,  not  to  being  connected  with  it  in 
origin — The  existence  of  the  want  in  some  sense  a  promise  of  its 
being  supplied — If  therefore  mythology  was  the  production  of  nature, 
Christianity  was  not — Christianity  must  have  been  the  product  of 
mythology,  unless  we  admit  the  influx  of  Divine  light  somewhere — 
This  is  a  conclusion  dependent  on  and  attested  by  facts — The  fact  of 
a  moral  revelation  through  the  conscience  analogous  to  a  similar 
revelation  of  Divine  truth,  of  which  the  proof  is  in  the  thing  revealed 
— How  shall  such  a  revelation  be  brought  home?  or  how  shall  we 
test  it  when  presented  ? — Internal  superiority  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  to  other  sacred  writings — External  evidence  of  history 
sufficient  to  arrest  attention— The  Old  Testament  the  basis  of  the 
New — The  conception  of  the  Christ  complete  in  the  New  Testament 
— Object  of  the  Lectures — Method  of  argument  pursued  .  .  1-36. 

LECTURE   II. 
£fje  ©tjrist  of  geim'si)  l^istorg. 

"In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed." — GEN.  xxii.  18. 
The  religions  of  the  world  bear  an  indirect  testimony  to  Christ— The 
pedigree  of    Christianity  known — The   promise  to  Abraham— The 

A  2 


vi  Contents. 


Exodus— The  wanderings— The  prophet— The  king— Summary — The 
hope  not  groundless— The  difficulty  of  explaining  it— The  message 
by  Nathan— Illustrated  by  David's  great  sin— The  inference  sug- 
gested—David's line  maintains  itself— The  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha 
— Change  in  the  history— Its  apparent  non-fulfilment — The  history 
not  complete— It  excites  expectation— The  priest— Meaning  of  the 
ritual,  and  of  its  cessation— Result  of  the  death  of  Christ— Con- 
clusion—The  seed— The  prophet— The  king— The  priest  .  37-72. 

LECTURE   III. 
&t)f  €i)rist  of  tije  psalms. 

"  As  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  psalm,  Thou  art  My  Son,  this  day 

have  I  begotten  Thee Wherefore  He  saith  also  in  another  psalm, 

Thou  shalt  not  suffer  Thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption."— ACTS  xiii.  33,  35. 

The  evidence  from  the  Psalms— Their  character — The  portrait  of  the 
righteous  man— The  general  characteristics  of  the  Psalms— The 
Divine  election  and  trust  in  God— National  election— Election  of  a 
particular  line— These  features  independent  of  date— The  Messianic 
Psalms— The  Second  Psalm— The  Eighth  Psalm  — The  Sixteenth 
Psalm— The  Twentieth  and  Twenty-first  Psalms— The  Twenty- 
second  Psalm— The  Fortieth  Psalm— The  Forty-fifth  Psalm— The 
Seventy-second  Psalm— The  Eighty-ninth  Psalm  — The  Hundred- 
and-tenth  Psalm— The  Hundred-and-thirty-second  Psalm— Sum- 
mary of  the  evidence  from  the  Psalms  .  .  .  73-104. 

LECTURE  IV. 
&ij*  €J)rist  of  $ropi)fC£. 

"And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  He  expounded  unto  them  in  all 
the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself." — LUKE  xxiv.  27. 

Position  of  the  prophets — Jonah — Amos — Micah — Obadiah — Isaiah 

"The  servant  of  the  Lord" — The  Fifty-third  chapter — Jeremiah — 
Haggai— Zechariah— Zechariah  ix.-xiv.— Malachi— Daniel — Conclu- 
sion .  .  .  ...  105-136. 

LECTURE  V. 
®f)e  ©ijrtst  of  tfj*  fflospris. 

"  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son 
of  Abraham." — MATT.  i.  1. 

Conclusions  derived  from  survey  of  the  Old  Testament— Corollaries  fol- 
lowing therefrom— Peculiarity  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures — 
Vagueness  of  the  conception  of  the  Messiah — But  mainly  twofold- 
Unfavourable  as  a  basis,  for  the  gospel  history — The  mission  of  John 
the  Baptist — The  results  produced  by  it — The  character  of  John  not 
constructed  out  of  the  prophets,  but  wholly  original — This  much 


Contents.  vii 


more  true  of  Jesus — The  materials  available  for  Jesus  or  for  the 
Evangelists — These  were  the  Scriptures  and  the  career  of  John — The 
career  of  Jesus  entirely  independent  and  distinct — The  evidence  on 
this  point  clear — The  originality  of  Christ's  language  and  teaching — 
Its  contrast  to  that  of  John,  which  was  real,  or  else  invented  by  the 
Evangelists— The  method  pursued  by  Jesus,  which  embraced  miracles 
and  parables— The  position  He  claimed  for  faith— Identifying  Himself 
with  the  object  of  it — The  appointment  of  the  twelve,  who  were  for- 
bidden to  go  to  the  Gentiles— The  thought  of  His  own  death— He 
claimed  to  be  the  Christ— His  betrayal  and  violent  death— His  resur- 
rection the  third  day,  not  suggested  by  the  Scriptures— The  parallel 
not  immediately  suggested  by  the  facts  themselves— The  triumphant 
entry  into  Jerusalem,  and  other  details  of  His  history— The  disciples' 
slowness  to  believe — The  position  assumed  and  the  conclusions  drawn 
—The  instance  of  the  slaughter  of  the  children — The  gospel  narrative 
substantially  true,  and  true  in  subordinate  details — Comparison  of 
antecedent  improbabilities— How  are  the  facts  to  be  interpreted  ? 

137-170. 

LECTURE  VI. 
2Tije  ©ijn'st  of  tije  flcts. 

"  For  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  and  that  publicly,  shewing  by  the 
Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ." — ACTS  xviii.  28. 

The  position  at  present  arrived  at — The  date  of  the  Acts  left  open — The 
general  trustworthiness  of  the  book — The  evidence  fairly  deducible 
from  it — An  earlier  condition  pre-supposed — The  Acts  did  not  grow 
out  of  the  Gospels— The  probable  author — The  Acts  entitled  to  inde- 
pendent consideration — The  birthplace  of  the  new  religion — The 
death  of  Jesus  one  of  the  earliest  facts  proclaimed — The  agency  of 
the  Scriptures — The  importance  of  this  fact,  brought  to  bear  alike 
upon  Jews  and  Gentiles — The  Christ-character  inseparable  from  the 
preaching  of  Jesus,  but  manifestly  inappropriate — Results  obtainable 
from  the  Acts — Independent  of  the  Gospels,  but  confirmatory — The 
Jesus  who  had  died  was  accepted  as  the  Christ  of  the  Scriptures — 
Another  element  at  work,  which  was  the  announcement  that  He  had 
risen  —  The  conviction  produced  impossible  without  it — The  Acts 
differs  from  the  Gospels,  in  giving  the  history  of  Christian  life,  and 
its  growth— The  originality  of  the  phenomenon— Agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit— The  Acts  the  measure  of  the  results  produced,  which  were 
evidence  of  a  new  life  at  work,  which  was  not  generated  by  the 
faith  of  the  disciples — The  tendency  of  the  new  teaching,  of  which 
the  essence  was, "  Jesus  is  the  Christ " — Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
indicating  a  personal  life — The  history  presupposes  the  life  of  Jesus, 
and  the  reality  of  the  facts  alleged — The  Acts  illustrative  of  our  Lord's 
own  words— Practical  conclusions  .  171-202. 


viii  Contents. 


LECTURE  VII. 

of  tfje  Pauline  SptstUs. 


"Set  your  affection  on  things  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth.    For  ye  are 
dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God."—  COL.  iii.  2,  3. 

The  certainty  of  the  Pauline  Epistles—  What  the  Epistles  prove—  The 
identity  of  the  Person  of  whom  they  speak  —  Jesus  accepted  as  the 
Christ  —  It  was  thus  with  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  with  the  Jews  —  The 
persuasion  produced  by  the  Scriptures  —  The  Epistles  corroborate  the 
Acts  and  the  Gospels—  They  show  the  general  trustworthiness  of  the 
history  of  the  Acts  —  The  Epistles  witness  to  the  writer's  faith  —  The 
events  implied  certain,  especially  when  we  take  into  account  the 
means  employed—  These  Epistles  carry  us  back  to  an  earlier  time  — 
Events  cannot  be  imagined,  but  may  be  misunderstood  —  The  import 
of  the  word  "Christ"—  The  relation  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Gospels  — 
Features  common  to  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles—  The  belief  in 
Christ  the  product  of  two  factors,  but  could  not  have  been  foreseen  — 
The  Epistles  the  product  of  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ—  The  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  implied  —  The  Pauline  Epistles  prove  the  life  of 
Jesus,  and  the  effects  which  followed  His  acceptance  as  the  Christ  — 
The  contrast  between  the  Epistles  and  the  Gospels—  They  were  not 
antagonistic  —  Facts  which  the  Epistles  presuppose  —  The  conclusions 
which  follow  —  The  Christ-character  of  Jesus  permanent  —  The  seal  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  .  .  203-236. 

LECTURE  VIII. 
®ije  e$rtst  of  tfje  ottjer  iaoofes. 

"I  Jesus  have  sent  Mine  angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the 
churches.  I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David,  and  the  bright  and 
Morning  Star."  —  REV.  xxii.  16. 

The  Christ-conception  the  net  result  of  the  New  Testament—  Original 
and  unique  —  Pointing  to  a  human  life  —  Other  aspects  of  the  same 
idea—  The  Epistle  of  St.  James—  The  Epistles  of  St.  John—  The  First 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter—  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter—  The  Epistle 
of  St.  Jude—  The  Revelation  of  St.  John—  The  results  that  follow 
from  all  this  —  The  expression,  "The  Holy  Spirit"  —  Is  the  witness  of 
a  new  fact  —  The  points  of  contact  in  the  Christian  writings  more 
important  than  those  of  contrast  —  The  rapid  development  of  the 
Christ-idea  —  The  result  of  the  human  life  of  Jesus—  The  Christ- 
conception  spiritual,  producing  results  not  to  have  been  anticipated, 
which  could  have  been  produced  by  no  one  else—  The  evidence  of 
origin  afforded  by  it—  Recapitulation—  The  consequent  permanence  of 
this  religion  —  Conclusion  .  ...  237-268. 


PREFACE. 


WE   CAN   DO   NOTHING  AGAINST   THE   TRUTH,   BUT   FOR  THE  TRUTH. 

8t.  Paul. 
£>ie  Jffiei^ett  ift  nur  in  t>er  SBafjr^eit.— Goethe. 


PREFACE. 

THE  object  of  the  following  Lectures  has  been  to  unfold 
the  significance,  too  often  overlooked  or  forgotten,  of 
the  name  Christianity,  which  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
the  Religion  of  the  Christ.  As  a  matter  of  historic  fact, 
the  name  by  which  this  religion  is  known  does  not  lead 
us  back  so  much  to  Christ  as  its  founder  in  the  way  that 
Muhammadanism  leads  us  back  to  Muhammad  for  its 
founder,  as  it  does  to  the  Christ  as  the  object  and  substance 
of  the  earliest  ascertainable  faith  of  the  people  called 
Christians.  Whatever  uncertainty,  real  or  imaginary,  may 
attach  to  the  actual  origin  of  this  belief,  there  is  and  can 
be  no  question  whatever  as  to  its  earliest  expressions. 
These  survive  to  us  in  literary  monuments,  which  are 
imperishable  and  undoubted.  The  four  great  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  are  themselves  a  treasury  of  evidence  in  this 
respect,  and  they  must  continue  to  be  so  until  it  can  be 
shown  on  equal  evidence,  which  as  yet  is  not  producible, 
that  they  represent  only  one  phase,  and  that  a  partial  and 
sectional  phase,  of  early  Christianity. 

It  is,  however,  commonly  admitted  now  that  we  need 
not  limit  the  genuine  remains  of  the  great  Apostle  to  these 
four  letters ;  and  it  is  certain,  whatever  our  opinion  as  to 
the  formation  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  or  the 
degree  of  authority  attaching  to  it  when  formed,  may  be, 
that  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  or  the  belief  in  Jesus  as 


xii  Preface. 

the  Christ,  is  not  only  common  to  every  document  com- 
prised in  it,  but  is  alike  the  very  backbone  and  essential 
framework  of  all  the  documents. 

We  may  take  it  therefore  as  a  position  which  is  unassail- 
able, that  the  distinguishing  mark  of  Christianity,  from 
the  very  first,  trace  it  back  as  far  as  we  can,  was  the  belief 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  So  manifestly  true  is  this 
statement,  that  the  mere  expression  of  it  has  all  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  truism.  And  yet  it  is  not  by  any  means 
such ;  because,  what  is  not  involved  in  the  fact,  undenied 
and  undeniable,  that  a  vast  society  was  called  into  exist- 
ence, and  held  together,  by  the  confession  and  belief  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  that  but  for  such  a  confession 
and  belief  this  society  would  and  could  have  had  no  exist- 
ence ?  There  are  involved  at  least  these  two  principles — 
1.  That  the  conception  of  the  Christ,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  was  a  reality,  and  a  reality  fraught  with  the 
mightiest  consequences;  and  2.  That  the  features  of  the 
human  life  of  Jesus  were  adequate  to  setting  in  motion 
the  machinery  which  was  latent  in  the  Christ-conception. 

And  as  to  the  strength  and  truth  of  this  position,  the 
evidence  of  the  New  Testament,  whatever  the  date  and 
authorship  of  its  various  parts  may  be,  is  conclusive  and 
unimpeachable.  Taking  the  very  widest  possible  margin, 
we  may  say  that  within  the  first  century  and  a  half  of  our 
era  this  simple  formula,  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  had  called  into 
existence  the  whole  of  that  literature,  whatever  its  value, 
which  is  comprised  in  the  New  Testament.  Within  that 
period  of  time,  from  which  we  must  of  course  deduct  the 
thirty  years  of  our  Lord's  own  life,  there  had,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  come  into  existence  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  and  the  Eevelation; 
that  is  to  say,  we  have  certain  literary  monuments  which 
must  have  come  into  existence  between  A.D.  30  and  A.D. 
150,  and  their  actual  existence  is  the  problem  to  be  solved. 


Preface.  xiii 

Practically,  this  period  may  be  considerably  lessened.  No 
one  wishes  to  prove  the  existence  of  any  Christian  docu- 
ment prior  to  A.D.  50,  and  it  is  making  unnecessary 
concessions  to  suppose  that  even  the  latest  book  of  the 
New  Testament  is  so  late  as  A.D.  150.  Within  a  period, 
then,  probably  at  the  most  of  seventy  or  eighty  years, 
our  existing  documents  were  produced.  To  what  was  their 
production  owing?  Solely  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ.  It  is  alike  impossible  to  eliminate  this  funda- 
mental tenet  from  any  one  of  the  books  in  question,  and 
to  account  for  their  existence  without  pre-supposing  its 
belief. 

The  religion  or  belief,  then,  of  which  the  books  may  be 
taken  as  the  actual,  and  in  some  sense  the  natural  expres- 
sion, may  be  called  the  Religion  of  the  Christ.  The 
immediate  result  of  that  religion  or  belief  was  the  creation 
of  a  unique  literature,  for  which  no  parallel  can  be  found 
in  the  literary  history  of  the  world.  The  literature  was 
the  product,  and  is  the  witness  to  the  existence,  of  a 
particular  society  known  to  us  also  from  extraneous  sources 
as  the  Christian  society,  whose  very  name  brings  us  back 
again  to  the  idea  which  was  latent  in  every  one  of  the 
books,  that  the  Christ  had  come,  and  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ.  It  matters  not  now  whether  the  society  authenti- 
cates the  books,  or  the  books  authenticate  the  society.  To 
a  certain  extent  the  books,  it  must  be  allowed,  have  a 
testimony  of  their  own;  they  are  a  fair  index  of  the  society 
which  created  them,  and  their  relative  position  with  respect 
to  other  books  which  were  produced  by  the  society  is  a 
proof  of  the  estimate  in  which  they  were  held  by  it;  while 
in  the  case  both  of  the  society  and  the  books  it  was  not 
possible  for  either  to  have  existed  without  the  previous 
acceptance  of  the  underlying  principle  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ.  This  was  at  once  the  germ  of  the  society's  exist- 
ence, the  means  of  its  cohesion  and  support  when  formed 

I 


xiv  Preface. 

and  the  root-principle  to  which  the  books  bore  witness, 
and  to  which  alone  they  owed  their  being. 

Not,  however,  that  the  maintenance  of  this  principle 
was  the  direct  object  of  all  the  books.  It  was  so  with  the 
four  Gospels  only.  We  may  say  of  them  that  the  purpose 
for  which  they  were  written  was  to  proclaim  Jesus  as  the 
Christ.  St.  John  said  of  his  own  record  of  events,  These 
are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.1 
And  the  same  might  have  been  affirmed  by  the  other 
Evangelists.  But  with  the  rest  of  the  books  this  is  not  so 
much  the  purpose  as  the  cause  of  their  being  written.  In 
every  one  the  position  is  accepted  as  a  foregone  conclusion 
which  can  only  be  referred  to  incidentally,  but  which  is 
none  the  less  present  to  the  writer's  mind  and  to  the  minds 
of  all  for  whom  he  writes.  Eliminate  from  him  and  them 
the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  you  destroy  the 
peculiar  and  essential  features  of  their  existence. 

And  this,  it  must  be  observed,  is  altogether  independent 
of  the  abstract  truth  of  the  principle  they  accepted.  Here 
we  have  this  obvious  literary  fact,  the  creation  and  exis- 
tence of  a  new  and  original  literature  solely  in  consequence 
of  the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  The  rise  of  the  Christ- 
religion  proclaimed  itself  by  the  rise  of  a  new  literature 
which  gathered  round  the  central  thought  of  Jesus  as  the 
Christ.  This  is  an  undoubted  fact,  independent  alike  of 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  several  books  and 
of  the  actual  truth  of  their  central  thought. 

Nor  can  it  for  a  moment  be  maintained  that  the  move- 
ment thus  expressing  itself  was  trivial  or  unimportant. 
We  cannot  pass  it  by  as  an  insignificant  or  an  uninteresting 
phenomenon.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  movement  which  so 
early  produced  these  literary  monuments,  and  resulted  in 
what  we  call  Christianity,  has  lasted  to  the  present  day ; 
it  has  played  a  most  prominent  part  in  modern  history ; 

1  St.  John  xx.  31. 


Preface.  xv 

by  some  means  or  other  it  supplanted  the  dominion  of  the 
Caesars,  and  established  itself  on  the  imperial  throne;  it 
has  penetrated  all  the  framework  of  our  social,  political, 
and  educational  existence,  and  intertwined  itself  with  our 
civilisation,  morals,  and  government.  Moreover,  it  is  even 
now  from  time  to  time  forcing  itself  into  inconvenient 
prominence,  and  superinducing  complications  with  which 
it  is  by  no  means  easy  to  deal,  and  suggesting  problems  it 
is  hard  to  solve,  and  yet  not  easy  to  put  by. 

The  fact,  therefore,  of  the  rise  of  this  Christ-religion 
and  Christ-literature  derives  unquestionably  an  additional 
significance  from  the  nature  of  its  subsequent  history.  It 
cannot  be  treated  as  a  merely  transient  or  passing  incident. 
Whether  or  not  it  was  calculated  to  be  followed  by  conse- 
quences so  tremendous,  these  are  the  consequences  by  which 
it  was  followed.  It  is  possible  that  the  haze  of  distance 
may  have  concealed  from  view  many  of  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  rise  of  this  religion  which  it  must  be 
hopeless  for  us  ever  to  discover ;  but  the  results  produced 
are  independent  of  this  obscurity,  and  are  what  they  are, 
neither  more  nor  less,  even  though  somewhere  in  the  first 
origin  of  the  movement  there  may  have  been  something 
faulty,  or  which,  at  all  events,  science  now  regards  as  un- 
satisfactory. 

In  the  long  run,  however,  it  is  a  sound  maxim  that  the 
work  proves  the  workman,  and  it  is  an  inference  not  alto- 
gether hasty  or  unreasonable  that  a  movement  such  as  that 
of  the  Christ-religion,  which  has  wrought  so  marvellously, 
cannot  have  been  inherently  defective  from  the  first.  No 
human  agency  or  combination  of  human  agents  could  have 
sufficed  to  produce  the  effects  which  have  notoriously  been 
produced,  and  therefore  the  effects  may  be  estimated,  not 
as  the  designed  production  of  one  or  of  many  individuals, 
but  as  those  great  problems  of  history  which  are  fraught 
with  their  own  significance,  and  demand  their  own  solution. 


xvi  Preface. 

"We  may  hold  our  judgment  in  suspense  as  to  whether  this 
particular  work  is  of  Nature  or  of  God,  but  at  all  events 
it  unquestionably  is  not  of  man. 

And  the  alternative  is  named  advisedly,  of  Nature  or  of 
God,  because  this  with  regard  to  Christianity  is  really  the 
issue  at  stake.  If  the  actual  phenomena  of  the  rise  of  the 
Christ-religion  can  be  accounted  for  naturally,  then  there 
is  an  end  to  its  claim  to  be  in  any  sense  the  special  expo- 
nent of  the  Divine  will.  Nature  may  be  indeed  another 
name  for  God,  but  God  and  Nature  are  not  convertible 
terms,  and  to  attempt  to  make  them  so  is  to  destroy  the 
special  characteristics  of  both.  God  may  have  spoken,  and 
doubtless  has  spoken,  by  all  the  religions  of  the  world,  but 
He  has  done  so  in  a  negative  way,  by  showing  us  where 
they  failed  to  apprehend  the  fulness  of  the  truth,  or  to 
supply  the  actual  craving  of  man's  heart.  If  He  has 
spoken  by  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  He  has  done  so  in 
a  special  and  a  positive  way,  which  differs  alike  in  the 
answer  given  to  the  wants  of  humanity  and  in  the  manner 
of  His  giving  it.  If  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ  can  be 
resolved  into  a  mere  expression  of  natural  religion — a  mere 
variation  of  other  expressions — then  it  forthwith  comes  to 
an  end,  because  there  is  no  room  for  the  Christ-function, 
and  no  meaning  in  the  Christ-idea ;  then,  in  that  case,  God 
and  Nature  are  absolutely  identical,  and  what  is  done  by 
Nature  is  done  by  God,  and  what  is  done  by  God  is  only 
done  by  and  in  and  through  Nature ;  and  then  Christ  is  an 
anomaly  in  Nature,  interfering  not  only  with  the  free  action 
of  her  laws,  but  antagonistic  in  the  very  principle  and 
idea  of  His  existence,  as  proposing  to  discharge  a  function 
for  which  Nature  has  no  need. 

It  must  be  observed,  however,  that,  supposing  God  to 
have  spoken  by  all  the  religions  of  the  world,  and  to  have 
spoken  in  the  same  sense  by  Christianity  too,  then  the 
message  of  Christianity  must  be  in  virtual  harmony  with 


Preface.  xvii 

the  message  of  other  religions;  it  may  surpass  or  excel, 
but  it  cannot  contradict  them.  Now,  the  question  whether 
or  not  it  does  contradict  them  is  unhappily  not  a  matter 
of  opinion,  but  a  matter  of  fact,  and  capable  of  conclusive 
demonstration.  The  history  of  Christianity  from  the  first 
has  been  a  history  of  conflict — of  conflict,  however,  not 
sought,  but  encountered ;  and  the  severity  of  this  conflict 
was  originally  felt  in  the  contact  of  Christianity  with  the 
elder  religion  from  which  it  sprang,  or  at  least  with  those 
who  were  the  professed  and  devoted  adherents  of  that 
religion.  Nor  has  Christianity  proved  to  be  more  acceptable 
to  the  other  religions  with  which  it  has  been  brought  in 
contact — whether  with  the  paganism  of  Greece  and  Home, 
or  with  Islam,  in  the  middle  ages,  or  with  Brahrnanism  or 
Buddhism  in  the  East.  It  has  never  been  received  as  an 
ally,  but  always  been  rejected  as  a  foe.  We  may  assume, 
therefore,  that  the  message  of  Christianity  is  not  in  accord- 
ance with,  but  opposed  to,  the  message  of  other  religions. 
There  is  a  point  where  it  comes  into  collision  with  and 
contradicts  them  on  their  own  showing;  and  this  is  the 
point  which  is  expressed  in  the  foundation  and  central 
idea  of  it  as  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ.  As  long  as  Chris- 
tianity is  content  to  be  placed  on  a  par  merely  with  other 
religions,  there  is  no  offence;  it  is  when  she  asserts  her 
inherent  superiority  because  of  her  Divine  election,  it  is 
when  she  takes  her  stand  upon  Jesus  as  the  Christ  or 
chosen  of  God,  that  the  cause  of  offence  arises.  Then  it 
is  that  the  Master's  words  begin  to  verify  themselves,  as 
they  so  often  have,  lam  not  come  to  send  peace,  hut  a  sword? 

And  Christianity  may  historically  be  regarded  as  the 
Eeligion  of  the  Christ.  The  earliest  monuments  of  it  show 
that  its  most  essential  feature  was  the  recognition  of  the 
Christ  character  of  Jesus.  But  when  we  come  to  examine 

2  St.  Matt.  x.  34,  35;  St.  Luke  xii.  49,  51. 


xviii  Preface. 


this  Christ  character  we  find  it  was  by  no  means  peculiar 
to  Christianity,  but  was  in  fact  the  legitimate  and  special 
offspring  of  Judaism,  so  that  Christianity  grew  like  a  young 
and  tender  plant  out  of  the  soil  of  Judaism.  This  also  is 
a  fact  which  cannot  be  denied.  If  the  Christ  idea  had  not 
existed  in  Judaism,  the  actual  foundation  of  Christianity 
would  have  been  wanting,  and  its  rise  would  have  been 
impossible.  The  Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  therefore,  may 
be  regarded  as  reaching  both  before  and  after  the  time  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the  very  earliest 
records  of  the  Jewish  nation  either  exhibit  traces  of  the 
Christ  idea  or  manifest  features  which  supplied  the  actual 
foundation  of  the  idea.  The  Religion  of  the  Christ,  then, 
is  not  merely  that  which  we  commonly  understand  by 
Christianity,  but  much  more  the  complete  phenomenon  of 
the  idea  regarded  as  a  whole,  and  embracing  the  earliest 
traces  of  it,  as  well  as  its  full  development  in  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament.  And  this  phenomenon  is  a  literary 
fact  established  by  literary  monuments  extending  on  the 
lowest  possible  computation  over  a  period  of  a  thousand 
years,  from  the  earliest  document  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
the  latest  in  the  New.  It  is  alike  impossible  to  account 
for  the  literary  existence  of  the  New  Testament  without 
assuming  the  reality  of  a  Christ  element  in  the  Old,  and 
to  account  for  its  existence  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  a 
mere  exaggeration  and  the  natural  development  of  that 
Christ  element. 

It  is  obvious,  moreover,  that  these  two  positions  are 
mutually  destructive.  If  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
can  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  of  the  intensity 
and  fanatical  ardour  of  the  Messianic  anticipations  of  the 
Disciples,  then  those  anticipations  presuppose  a  sufficient 
foundation  for  them  in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
inasmuch  as  they  can  be  referred  to  nothing  else;  we 


Preface.  xix 

must  acknowledge  the  existence  of  a  Christ  idea,  which 
can  only  have  been  derived  from  them.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  may  assume  the  non-existence  of  any  such  ele- 
ment, then  it  is  clear  that  the  New  Testament  cannot  have 
been  caused  by  the  exaggerated  development  of  this  ele- 
ment. Or  if,  once  more,  it  is  affirmed  that  the  Disciples 
had  indeed  these  anticipations  in  an  extravagant  degree,  but 
that  there  was  no  valid  foundation  for  them  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  can  be  critically  explained  otherwise,  then 
we  must  admit  that  historical  phenomena  which  are  most 
remarkable,  and  literary  phenomena  which  are  unique, 
were  alike  the  direct  and  natural  consequences  of  a  mis- 
apprehension so  complete,  of  a  blunder  so  palpable  and 
gross. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  actual  historic  rise  of 
faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  the  historic  and  literary 
results  of  that  belief,  may  legitimately  be  allowed  to  have 
a  retrospective  value  as  evidence  of  the  true  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  account  reasonably 
for  the  character  and  prevalence  of  the  Messianic  an- 
ticipations, of  which  we  have  literary  proof  in  the  first 
century  of  our  era,  on  the  assumption  that  these  antici- 
pations were  not  warranted  by  the  language  of  Scripture — 
were  even  a  deviation  from  it.  At  all  events,  the  Scrip- 
tures alone  must  be  held  responsible  for  their  existence. 
It  is  surely,  therefore,  a  daring  course  to  adopt,  to  say  that 
the  historic  result  was  one  which  ought  never  to  have 
been  produced.  May  we  not  rather  say,  that  if  the  voice 
of  God  is  ever  to  be  heard  in  history,  it  may  be  heard  in 
this  historic  result  ?  And  is  it  not  a  further  confirmation 
of  its  actual  truth,  that  these  ancient  Scriptures,  even 
when  read  now-a-days  after  so  long  an  interval,  are  still 
found  to  be  replete  with  an  inexhaustible  treasury  of 
meaning  which  they  could  not  have  had  for  their  original 
possessors,  but  which  is  derived  solely  from  their  relation 


xx  Preface. 

to  and  association  with  Jesus  as  the  Christ  ?  If  He  has 
thus  shown  Himself  the  light  of  prophecy,  may  we  not 
infer  that  His  was  the  light  for  which  prophecy  waited, 
and  to  which  it  was  designed  to  point  ? 

But  if  so,  nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than  that  such 
a  combination  of  results  is  not  to  be  reckoned  as  the  pro- 
duct of  nature ;  because  the  only  interpretation  of  it  can 
be,  that  this  is  the  expression  of  personal  will  manifesting 
itself  through  the  results  of  history  and  the  facts  of  litera- 
ture. Given  the  phenomena  of  prophecy  as  they  are,  and 
the  human  life  of  a  person  in  whom,  supposing  his  Christ- 
character  to  be  a  true  one,  their  meaning  is  not  only  realised, 
but  intensified  and  heightened  to  an  infinite  and  before 
inconceivable  degree,  is  it  possible  to  regard  the  juxta- 
position of  the  two  as  an  insignificant  and  casual  incident  ? 
If  it  is  fraught  with  any  meaning  at  all,  the  meaning  is 
one  which  can  only  be  other  than  natural  and  above  nature. 
It  is  an  expression  of  God's  will  such  as  is  not  elsewhere 
found,  in  the  order  and  harmony  of  the  natural  world,  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  history,  and  the  like ;  it  is  expressive 
of  moral  and  spiritual  truths  which  are  not  to  be  derived 
from  other  sources,  and  it  teaches  lessons  which  nature  is 
incompetent  to  teach. 

Now  this  is  the  position  which  we  claim  for  the  Eeligion 
of  the  Christ.  It  finds  its  place  naturally  among  the 
religions  of  the  world,  for  it  was  the  direct  descendant  of 
one  of  the  oldest  of  them,  and  it  has  been  brought  into 
contact  with  all  of  them.  But  it  stands  on  a  different 
footing  from  all.  For  no  religion  can  point  to  the  same 
historic  and  literary  development  which  the  Eeligion  of 
the  Christ  can  show.  In  no  other  case  has  the  supposed 
fulfilment  of  the  promises  of  an  earlier  religion  produced 
anything  like  the  phenomena  which  were  produced  by  the 
first  preaching  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ ;  in  no  other  case  has 
the  similar  proclamation  of  such  a  fact,  or  supposed  fact, 


Preface.  xxi 

produced  within  fifty  years  after  it  was  first  proclaimed 
anything  like  the  literary  phenomena  which  we  know  for 
a  certainty  were  produced  in  various  writings  of  the  New 
Testament.  These  two  features,  the  one  historic  and  the 
other  literary,  are  unique  in  the  case  of  the  Eeligion  of  the 
Christ.  May  we  not  then  fairly  claim  this  historic  and 
literary  development  of  the  religion  as  a  patent  evidence 
of  its  origin  ?  It  is  useless  to  point  to  any  other  literary 
monuments — such  as  the  Vedas,  the  Kuran,  or  the  like — 
because,  independently  of  the  inherent  and  intrinsic  differ- 
ence of  their  substantive  message,  they  differ  fundamentally 
in  the  known  circumstances  of  their  origin.  The  Kuran, 
no  less  than  the  Christian  books,  may  be  regarded  as  the 
literary  offspring  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  who  has  ever 
found  in  Muhammad  the  analogue  or  antitype  of  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  and  who  would  for  a  moment  compare  the  literary 
origin  of  the  New  Testament  with  that  of  the  Kuran  ? 
One  was  the  spontaneous  growth  of  circumstances,  and 
the  product  of  many  minds ;  the  other  was  the  deliberate 
production  of  a  single  mind  for  a  definite  and  deliberate 
purpose.  To  confound  in  any  degree  the  two  productions 
would  be  to  lack  altogether  the  faculty  of  discrimination 
— the  critical  faculty.  But  if  their  literary  and  historic 
difference  is  so  great,  it  is  impossible  that  the  two  religions 
they  represent  can  stand  on  the  same  basis.  To  imagine 
that  they  do  is  to  reject  the  evidence  of  facts. 

And  it  is  to  this  broad  evidence  that  we  point  in 
attestation  of  the  claims  that  were  undoubtedly  advanced 
by  those  who  first  proclaimed  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ. 
We  have  a  marvellous  historic  and  literary  result  distinctly 
traceable  to  no  other  cause  than  the  supposed  fulfilment 
in  a  particular  person  of  the  obvious  and  known  require- 
ments of  prophecy.  Of  the  nature  of  this  fulfilment  we 
are,  to  some  extent  competent  judges  ourselves.  According 
to  one  view,  the  degree  of  the  fulfilment  is  only  to  be 


xxii  Preface. 

regarded  as  infinite ;  it  is  continually  revealing  itself  to 
every  independent  student  and  disciple.  According  to 
another  view,  the  fulfilment  is  simply  nil,  and  purely 
imaginary.  But  this  we  may  safely  affirm,  that  the  known 
results  of  the  supposed  fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that 
there  was  no  more  apparent  correspondence  between  the 
person  of  Jesus  and  the  character  of  the  Messiah  than 
those  who  hold  this  latter  view  would  have  us  believe,  or 
on  the  assumption  that  the  correspondence  was  unreal. 
The  Gospels,  as  we  have  them,  which  point  to  this  corre- 
spondence, may  more  properly  be  regarded  as  the  outcome 
of  the  belief  in  Jesus  than  as  the  cause  of  it.  The  belief 
itself  is  still  to  be  accounted  for,  even  if  we  reject  the 
Gospel  view  of  the  character  of  Jesus,  arid  so  likewise  are 
the  consequences  which  followed  the  belief. 

It  is  important,  therefore,  to  remember  that  it  is  not 
merely  with  literary  monuments  that  we  have  to  deal,  but 
with  the  known  historic  fact  of  great  results  produced,  of 
which  the  literature  itself,  however  regarded,  is  the  surest 
proof.  Can  the  supposition  of  falsehood  in  the  character 
and  claims  of  Jesus  adequately  account  for  these  results  ? 
or,  rather,  can  they  adequately  be  accounted  for  on  this 
supposition  ?  Certainly  not. 

There  must  have  been  other  causes  at  work  which  we 
are  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  for  these  known  results  to  have 
been  produced,  on  the  supposition  that  there  was  a  lie  in 
the  alleged  character  of  Christ ;  while,  on  the  supposition 
that  His  character  was  what  it  is  represented  to  have  been, 
all  the  phenomena  to  be  accounted  for  are  fully  explained. 

The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  particular  books  is 
altogether  a  separate  matter,  to  be  decided  on  other  grounds; 
but  it  would  appear  that  these  considerations  are  still  of 
weight,  however,  in  particular  cases,  this  question  of  genu- 
ineness may  be  determined. 


Preface.  xxiii 

And  the  wholly  anonymous  character  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  would  seem  to  corroborate  this  position.  That  the 
first  Gospel  is  known  by  the  name  of  St.  Matthew  does 
not  pledge  us  to  establish  his  traditional  right  to  be  the 
author  of  it  before  the  narrative  can  be  received  as  one 
substantially  trustworthy,  any  more  than  it  can  be  justly 
regarded  as  a  claim  advanced  by  him  to  have  written  it. 
And  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  original  results  pro- 
duced by  the  preaching  of  Jesus  were  owing  solely  to  the 
publication  of  this  and  the  other  existing  Gospels,  which 
is  absurd,  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  we  are  bound  to 
substantiate  their  genuineness  as  veritable  productions  of 
the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  before  we  can  insist  upon 
or  appeal  to  their  authority ;  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  acknowledgment  of  these  Gospels  from  a  very  early 
period  as  authentic  narratives  by  the  Christian  society  can 
be  proved,3  and  because  the  known  existence  and  phenomena 
of  that  society  cannot  be  accounted  for  but  on  the  suppo- 
sition of  substantial  identity  between  the  narrative  of  the 
present  Gospels  and  the  very  earliest  Gospel  narrative  that 
was  proclaimed.  The  existence  and  peculiar  features  of 
the  earliest  Christian  society  as  we  know  them  can  only 
be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  a  particular  story  was 
everywhere  accepted,  the  central  facts  of  which  it  is  easy 
to  discover.  This  story  was  unquestionably  proclaimed  by 
the  first  disciples  of  Christ ;  and  whether  the  record  that 
we  have  of  it  emanated  immediately  from  them  or  not,  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  that  it  should  be  substantially 
different.4 

3  See  Dr.  Westcott  on  The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

4  Compare,  for  example :  "  If  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  such  as  we 
now  possess  it,  is  undoubtedly  the  work  of  the  publican  who  followed 
our  Lord  from  the  receipt  of  custom,  and  remained  with  Him  to  be  a  witness 
of  His  ascension  ;  if  St.  John's  Gospel  was  written  by  the  beloved  disciple 
who  lay  on  Jesus'  breast  at  supper;  if  the  other  two  were  indeed  the  com- 
panions of  St.  Peter  and  St  Paul ;  if  in  these  four  Gospels  we  have  inde- 


xxiv  Preface. 

For  example,  it  is  impossible  that  the  story  of  the  resur- 
rection should  not  have  been  a  substantive  part  of  the 
primitive  and  original  Gospel.  Wherever  St.  Matthew 
preached,  we  know  as  a  fact  that  this  is  what  he  must  have 
preached.  Whether,  then,  or  not  he  wrote  the  Gospel  that 
bears  his  name  is  a  matter  of  secondary  importance,  com- 
pared with  the  absolute  certainty  there  is  that  his  testimony 
on  such  points  as  the  resurrection  and  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
cannot  have  been  intrinsically  divergent  from  that  of  our 
existing  record.  This  consideration,  which  is  perfectly 
valid,  is  quite  sufficient  to  show  that  a  doubt  thrown  on 
the  genuineness  of  one  or  more  of  our  existing  Gospels 
is  inadequate  to  disprove  the  essential  truth  of  the  Gospel, 
because  certain  known  effects  could  not  have  been  brought 
about  but  by  an  agency  in  all  material  and  important 

pendent  accounts  of  our  Lord's  life  and  passion,  mutually  confirming  each 
other ;  and  if  it  can  be  proved  that  they  existed  and  were  received  as 
authentic  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  Church,  a  stronger  man 
than  M.  Renan  will  fail  to  shake  the  hold  of  Christianity  in  England." — 
Froude,  Short  Studies,  i.  242. 

Of  St.  John's  Gospel  he  himself  observes  afterwards :  "  It  is  enough  to 
say  that  the  defects  of  external  evidence  which  undoubtedly  exist  seem 
overborne  by  the  overwhelming  proofs  of  authenticity  contained  in  the 
Gospel  itself."— Ibid,  p.  252. 

This  latter  is  a  very  considerable  admission.  If  it  is  granted  that  there 
are  "overwhelming  proofs"  for  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  being  written  by 
the  beloved  disciple  who  lay  on  Jesus'  breast  at  supper,  then  we  have  in 
the  admitted  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  a  strong  ground  for  its  authen- 
ticity, the  strongest  that  can  be  desired.  It  may  be  a  matter  of  question 
how  far  the  credibility  of  the  ordinary  events  recorded  in  the  other  Gos- 
pels is  dependent  on  the  fact  of  their  being  by  the  several  authors  whose 
names  they  bear.  It  is  certain  that  no  one  of  them  professes  so  much  of 
itself.  But  at  all  events  we  must  not  forget  that  there  are  certain  features 
of  our  Lord's  life  and  character  for  which  we  are  not  dependent  upon  the 
fact  that  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  was  written  by  St.  Matthew,  or  St.  Mark's 
by  St.  Mark,  but  much  more  upon  the  known  phenomena  of  an  early 
Christian  society,  whose  very  existence  would  have  been  impossible  with- 
out the  underlying  framework  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  whose  phenomena 
determine  within  certain  limits  what  that  life  and  character  must  have 
been. 


Preface.  xxv 

points  identical  with  that  which  they  represent  and  express. 
When,  however,  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  any  such  doubts 
are  virtually  baseless  and  unwarrantable,  it  is  satisfactory 
to  know,  not  only  that  the  main  issue  is  independent  of 
them,  as  it  really  is,  but  also  that,  if  it  were  not,  they  are 
not  deserving  of  the  serious  attention  we  are  willing  to 
bestow  upon  them. 

In  like  manner,  when  it  is  asserted,  as  one  has  heard 
it  asserted,  on  ostensibly  high  authority,  that  we  have  no 
materials  for  a  critical  life  of  Christ  because  the  evidence 
is  not  adequate  to  showing  that  our  present  Gospels  ex- 
isted as  they  are5  much  before  A.D.  170,  one  is  naturally 
disposed  to  enquire,  How  is  the  position  of  the  ordinary 
Christian  of  the  present  day  affected  by  any  such  state- 
ment, supposing  it  to  be  valid,  as  he  has  neither  the  time 
nor  the  power  to  determine  ?  And  here  likewise  the  con- 
sideration of  Christianity  as  the  Keligion  of  the  Christ 
will  materially  assist  us.  Given  the  assumption  that  we 
cannot  rely  upon  the  detailed  facts  of  our  Lord's  life  as 
stated  in  the  Gospels,  because  the  accounts  vary,  because 
some  particulars  are  of  later  accretion,  and  because  the 
generally  miraculous  character  of  the  narrative  is  alone 
fatal  to  its  credibility — how  far  are  we  dependent  on  any 
such  assumption  ?  It  is  certain  that  the  earliest  form  of 
Christianity  was  directly  and  immediately  connected  with 
the  belief  in  and  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  This 
position  is  absolutely  impregnable.  The  evidence  of  it  is 
documentary ;  it  is  abundant,  it  is  unvarying,  and  it  is 
conclusive.  What,  then,  do  we  know  of  the  Jesus  who 
was  thus  accepted  as  the  Christ  ?  We  know  that  He  was 

5  Cf.  e.g.  only,  not  as  the  case  alluded  to  in  the  text.  "The  four 
Gospels,  in  the  form  and  under  the  names  which  they  at  present  bear, 
become  visible  only  with  distinctness  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century  of  the  Christian  era." — Froude,  Short  Studies,  i.  248.  Small 
edition. 


xxvi  Preface. 

crucified,  we  know  when  and  where  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances He  was  crucified.  We  know  that  this  death 
by  crucifixion,  which  was  a  central  and  universally  com- 
mon feature  of  the  belief  concerning  Jesus,  was  also  a 
feature  the  most  unpromising  for  the  proclamation  of  His 
being  the  Christ  to  be  built  upon.  And  yet  the  two  are 
found  uniformly  combined,  both  among  the  Gentiles  and 
the  Jews.  Now,  if  we  knew  nothing  more  of  Jesus  than 
this  fact,  we  might,  considering  what  we  know  of  the  faith 
itself,  draw  certain  inferences  which  would  not  only  be 
legitimate  but  inevitable.  For  instance,  we  should  be  safe 
in  concluding  that  the  Jesus  who  was  thus  accepted  as 
the  Christ  was  a  person  who  had  really  lived.  His  death 
also  on  the  cross  must  have  been  a  fact.  The  reality  also 
of  those  expectations,  whatever  they  were,  which  are  im- 
plied in  the  epithet  Christ,  is  established  beyond  a  doubt ; 
and  that  these  expectations  had  been  the  net  historic 
result  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  re- 
markable fact  which  has  no  parallel.  We  can  point  to 
no  other  literature  which  has  produced  so  striking  and 
manifest  an  historic  result.  It  is  unique  in  the  history  of 
literature.  But,  further,  we  must  infer  also  that  if  the 
death  of  Jesus  was  an  unfavourable  basis  for  the  establish- 
ment of  His  claims  to  be  the  Messiah,  then  the  features 
of  His  personal  character  must  have  been  such  as  to 
counteract  all  these  unfavourable  conditions.  He  can 
have  been  no  ordinary  man.  There  must  have  been  very 
remarkable  characteristics  attending  His  person  and  His 
career  which  alone  would  have  made  it  possible  that  He 
should  be  recognised  as  the  Messiah.  Under  the  circum- 
stances, the  mere  fact  of  His  dying  the  death  of  crucifixion 
would  simply  have  been  fatal  to  it.  There  is  evidence, 
however,  to  show  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  instead  of  its 
being  fatal  to  it,  this  was  the  very  cause  of  His  being  so 
recognised.  We  are  compelled,  therefore,  to  the  inference 


Preface.  xxvii 


that  there  must  have  been  something  very  remarkable  in 
His  life  or  in  His  death,  or  after  His  death,  to  account 
for  a  circumstance  so  anomalous  as  that  His  death  on 
the  cross  should  be  the  principal  cause  of  belief  in  His 
Messiahship,  or  at  least  an  element  inseparable  from  that 
cause,  whatever  it  might  be.  Consequently,  we  are  safe 
in  the  conclusion  that  the  personal  character  of  Jesus  was 
unquestionable,  that  He  must  have  been  pre-eminently 
virtuous.  There  is,  however,  abundant  evidence  to  show 
that  the  character  of  the  Messiah  was  not  one  that  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  had  invented  for  Him,  but  also  one  to 
which  He  Himself  laid  claim.  We  know  nothing  of  His 
history  if  we  do  not  know  that  He  claimed  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah. For  example,  \ve  cannot  account  for  His  death  but 
upon  this  supposition.  Consequently,  we  have  these  three 
elements:  first,  His  known  death;  secondly,  the  claim 
which  we  must  assume  was  advanced  by  Him;  thirdly, 
the  integrity  of  personal  character  essential  to  any  wide 
recognition  of  the  claim.  But  the  last  two  must  stand  or 
fall  together.  It  is  impossible  that  Jesus  should  have 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  have  been  content  to  die 
for  the  claim,  and  yet  have  been  personally  upright,  if  He 
was  not  justified  in  advancing  the  claim.  In  that  case  the 
integrity  of  His  character  comes  to  an  end,  and  the  only 
estimate  we  can  form  of  it  is  one  which  will  throw  Him 
open  to  the  charge  of  gross  and  deliberate  imposition. 
We  must  determine,  therefore,  whether,  in  the  face  of  the 
evidence,  we  are  prepared  to  form  this  estimate  of  the 
personal  character  of  Jesus.  With  regard,  however,  to  the 
elements  without  which  a  belief  in  His  Messiahship  could 
not  have  been  established,  we  may  say  that  while  His 
death  on  the  cross  would  naturally  have  been  fatal  to 
that  belief,  it  would  also  materially  have  corroborated  the 
supposed  integrity  of  His  character  if  His  character  had 
previously  had  the  appearance  of  blainelessness ;  and, 


xxviii  Preface. 

coupled  with  the  fact  that  He  had  openly  claimed  to 
be  the  Messiah,  it  would  tend  to  establish  its  integrity. 
But  the  death  of  Jesus,  together  with  His  claim  to  be 
the  Messiah,  which,  combined  with  the  integrity  of  His 
personal  character,  it  seemed  to  establish,  could  not  alone 
have  given  the  impulse  to  that  belief  in  His  Messiahship 
which  we  know  to  have  been  so  widely  diffused.  We  must 
throw  in  the  announcement  of  His  resurrection,  which  was 
universally  made  and  within  the  Christian  body  uniformly 
believed.  Indeed,  when  all  things  are  considered,  it  is 
impossible  to  account  for  the  general  spread  of  the  belief 
in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  without  supposing  that  it  was 
mainly  occasioned  by  the  announcement  that  He  had 
risen  from  the  dead.  The  question,  then,  we  have  to 
decide  is  simply  this :  Is  it  more  easy  to  account  for  the 
phenomena  of  the  early  Christian  society  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  a  reality,  or  on 
the  opposite  supposition  that  it  was  not  ?  And  in  reply, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that,  on  the  supposition  of  its  being  a 
reality,  all  these  known  phenomena  would  be  at  once  and 
amply  accounted  for ;  whereas,  on  the  supposition  that  it 
was  not,  a  known  effect  is  left  without  any  adequate  cause, 
and  it  may  be  reasonably  doubted  whether  it  is  theoreti- 
cally possible  to  account  for  it. 

For  in  that  case  we  should  be  reduced  to  the  admission 
of  these  causes  as  really  and  efficiently  operative :  The 
death  of  Jesus;  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah;  the  integrity 
of  His  personal  character;  the  belief  among  His  immediate 
followers  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead;  and  the  an- 
nouncement persistently  made  by  them  and  others  to  that 
effect.  Of  these  causes  the  death  of  Jesus  was  most 
•unlikely  to  produce  belief  in  His  Messiahship,  as  we  have 
seen ;  His  personal  claim  to  be  the  Messiah  was  not  likely 
to  be  more  operative ;  the  integrity  of  His  personal  cha- 
racter alone  would  have  been  insufficient;  and  therefore 


Preface.  xxix 

we  are  compelled  to  assume  that  the  known  phenomena  of 
the  first  Christian  society  were  produced  merely  by  an 
intense  belief  in  that  which  was  not  true.  That  is  to  say, 
the  faith  of  the  disciples  produced  results  which,  but  for 
it,  they  were  themselves  unable  to  have  produced. 

To  what,  then,  is  this  faith  of  the  disciples  traceable  ? 
To  suppose  that  they  were  intentional  deceivers  is  im- 
possible ;  we  can  only  imagine  they  were  the  victims  of 
delusion.     How  did  they  themselves  become  possessed  of 
the  conviction  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  ?   Two  causes  are 
at  once  apparent — the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  His 
personal  character.     They  could  not  have  been  for  any 
considerable  time  in  His  society,  and  have  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  He  was  the  Christ,  unless  His  personal 
character  had  been  in  accordance  with  His  claims.     Nor 
would  they  have  been  very  likely  to  adopt  the  notion  of 
His  being  the  Messiah  unless  it  had  been  encouraged  by 
Him.     When,  however,  they  had  seen  their  Master  expire 
on  the  cross,  there  must  have  been  an  end  to  all  their 
anticipations  about  Him,  for  it  was  precisely  this  death 
of  His  which  was  the  least  likely  to  convince  them  of  His 
Messiahship.     We  are  constrained,  therefore,  to  postulate 
the  occurrence  of  something  after  His  death  which  had  the 
effect  not  only  of  reviving  their  hopes,  but  of  establishing 
on  a  secure  basis  their  conviction  that  He  was  the  Christ, 
in  which  they  never  afterwards  wavered.     If  this  was  not 
His  resurrection,  it  was  at  all  events  the  belief  common 
to  all  of  them,  that  He  had  actually  risen.  His  resurrection, 
however,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  an  event  for  which 
they  were  prepared ;  on  the  contrary,  it  took  them  one  and 
all  by  surprise ;  they  were  not,  it  seems,  without  difficulty 
brought  to -believe  in  it.     To  what,  then,  was  this  belief 
owing?  The  fact  of  the  resurrection  would  at  once  account 
for  it  ?     Can  it  be  otherwise  accounted  for  ?    In  their  case 
also,  therefore,  we  have  certain  known  results  produced 

c 


xxx  Preface. 

which  point  us  to  a  particular  cause,  but  are  not  easily  to 
be  explained  by  the  supposition  of  any  other  cause.  And 
when  to  these  results  we  add  the  others,  equally  patent — 
of  the  peculiar  life  the  disciples  forthwith  adopted  of  going 
about  preaching  the  story  of  the  resurrection,  and  of  the 
remarkable  consequences  which  followed  their  preaching — 
it  becomes  by  no  means  easy  to  accept  the  answer  that  the 
belief  of  the  disciples  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  all  the 
phenomena,  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  resurrection  was 
not  a  fact,  when  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  had  it  been 
a  fact  there  would  remain  nothing  which  required  to  be 
accounted  for.  We  are  able,  then,  to  determine  how  far 
a  critical  life  of  Christ  is  an  indispensable  preliminary  to 
our  belief  in  Him.  Even  on  the  assumption  that  we  had 
no  materials  for  such  a  life,  it  would  not  follow  that  belief 
in  Him  was  an  impossibility;  for  it  is  certain  that  the 
results  which  actually  followed  the  first  proclamation  of 
Jesus  as  the  Christ  are  such  as  to  lead  us  up  to  a  few 
broad  and  definite  facts  as  their  necessary  cause,  and  to 
make  us  virtually  independent  of  all  others.  Whether  one 
blind  man  was  healed  at  Jericho,  or  two,  may  be  more  or 
less  uncertain ;  but  the  uncertainty  attaching  to  that  event 
is  no  measure  at  all  of  the  degree  of  positive  knowledge 
we  possess  as  to  the  death  of  Jesus  and  the  prevalence  of 
belief  in  His  resurrection. 

In  like  manner  we  are  enabled,  by  a  due  consideration 
of  the  historic  and  literary  phenomena  of  the  Eeligion  of 
the  Christ,  to  arrive  at  a  more  correct  idea  of  the  position 
attaching  to  miracles  in  the  scheme  of  revelation.  It  is 
not  true  to  say  that  "  the  Eevelation  rests  upon  miracles, 
which  have  nothing  to  rest  upon  but  the  Eevelation."  6  The 

e  «  Miracles,  of  the  reality  of  which  there  is  no  evidence  worthy  of  the 
name,  are  not  only  contradictory  to  complete  induction,  but  even  on  the 
avowal  of  those  who  affirm  them,  they  only  cease  to  be  incredible  upon 
certain  assumptions  with  regard  to  the  Supreme  Being  which  are  equally 


Preface.  xxxi 

revelation  is  recorded  in  a  literature  which  presents  features 
altogether  unique  that  no  concatenation  of  purely  natural 
causes  is  sufficient  to  account  for.  Here  then  we  have  a 
solid  basis  for  the  miraculous  to  rest  on,  for  we  are  con- 
fronted with  phenomena  which  were  not  merely  exceptional 
but  above  nature.  It  is  not  this  or  that  detail,  this  or  that 
text  or  expression,  which  cannot  be  explained,  but  the  vast 
and  complex  whole  is  so  remarkable  as  to  challenge  to 
itself  the  special  tokens  of  a  Divinely  ordered  work.  We 
have  the  appearance  of  an  historic  person,  whose  position 
in  history,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly, 
has  been  determined  by  His  relation  to  the  ancient  litera- 
ture of  His  country.  That  literature  did  not  create  His 
character,  but  it  did  create  the  part  He  played  in  history. 
Stupendous  consequences  have  ensued  from  His  relation  to 
the  Scriptures.  These  consequences  themselves  are  out  of 
the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  They  may  well  be  termed 
miraculous.7  Had  there  been  nothing  miraculous  in  the 
Old  Testament,  the  character  of  Jesus  and  the  Eeligion  of 
the  Christ  would  have  been  alike  impossible.  Had  there 
been  nothing  miraculous  in  the  person  and  character  of 

opposed  to  Reason.  These  assumptions,  it  is  not  denied,  are  solely  derived 
from  the  Revelation  which  miracles  are  intended  to  attest,  and  the  whole 
argument,  therefore,  ends  in  the  palpable  absurdity  of  making  the  Reve- 
lation rest  upon  miracles  which  have  nothing  to  rest  upon  themselves  but 
the  Revelation.  The  antecedent  assumption  of  the  Divine  design  of 
Revelation  and  of  the  necessity  for  it  stands  upon  no  firmer  foundation, 
and  it  is  emphatically  excluded  by  the  whole  constitution  of  the  order 
of  nature,  whose  imperative  principle  is  progressive  development." — 
Supernatural  Religion,  ii.  480.  First  Edition.  Longmans.  1874. 

7  "  When  the  man  of  science  can  find  a  natural  cause,  he  refuses  to 
entertain  the  possibility  of  the  intervention  of  a  cause  beyond  nature." — 
Froude,  i.  234. 

By  all  means ;  but  surely  the  converse  must  hold  good  likewise ;  and 
when  no  natural  cause  can  be  discovered,  and  when  it  plainly  does  not 
exist,  then  let  us  admit,  not  only  the  possibility,  but  the  fact  of  the  inter- 
vention of  a  cause  beyond  nature.  It  is  that  which  we  find  in  the  Religion 
of  the  Christ. 


xxxii  Preface. 

Jesus,  the  New  Testament,  as  a  mere  literary  phenomenon, 
would  have  been  impossible,  and  so  would  the  existence  of 
the  Christian  church.  These  things  singly  are  evidences  of 
the  miraculous  only  short  of  demonstration;  taken  together 
they  furnish  the  completest  possible  moral  proof  of  what 
can  only  be  regarded  as  a  miracle.  But  having  arrived  so 
far,  it  is  not  hard  to  see  that  what  is  miraculous  as  a  whole 
may  also  be  miraculous  in  its  parts.  What  is  in  itself 
miraculous  may  be  fraught  with  miracles.  Any  one  of  such 
miracles  may  be  beyond  the  reach  of  scientific  proof,  and 
must  be. 8  The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  at  this  distance  of 
time  cannot  be  investigated,  and  therefore  cannot  be  proved ; 
but  who  shall  say  that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  was 

8  "  Every  thinking  person  who  has  been  brought  up  a  Christian,  and 
desires  to  remain  a  Christian,  yet  who  knows  anything  of  what  is  passing 
in  the  world,  is  looking  to  be  told  on  what  evidence  the  New  Testament 
claims  to  be  received.  The  state  of  opinion  proves  of  itself  that  the 
arguments  hitherto  offered  produce  no  conviction.  Every  other  miraculous 
history  is  discredited  as  legend,  however  exalted  the  authority  on  which 
it  seems  to  be  rested.  We  crave  to  have  good  reason  shown  us  for  main- 
taining still  the  one  great  exception." — Froude,  i.  264. 

If  there  is  any  value  in  the  considerations  now  offered,  it  is  plain  that 
the  whole  surroundings  of  Christianity,  in  its  known  historic  and  literary 
development,  are  so  remarkable  as  to  constitute,  at  all  events,  a  sufficient 
claim  to  our  most  earnest  attention.  When  we  have  determined  the 
amount  of  deference  that  is  due  to  its  moral  and  spiritual  teaching,  then, 
and  not  before,  it  will  be  time  to  decide  about  its  miracles.  If  we  can 
determine  that  the  authority  on  which  this  teaching  rests  is  merely  human, 
that  it  is  not  rooted  in  the  Divine,  then  we  may  reject  the  miracles  by 
which  it  is  accompanied  as  human  likewise,  that  is  to  say  fictitious.  If 
we  are  constrained  to  admit  that  the  teaching  is  Divine,  that  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  communicated  and  the  method  of  its  communi- 
cation were  highly  exceptional,  and  in  fact  unparalleled,  then  we  may  be 
willing  to  allow,  not  only  that  the  revelation  affords  a  presumption  in 
favour  of  the  miracles,  but  also  that  the  miracles  themselves,  if  true, 
would  even  tend  to  confirm  the  revelation.  The  essential  history  of  the 
revelation,  in  all  its  bearings,  itself  involves  a  miracle,  the  greatest 
miracle  of  all.  If  this  miracle  is  rejected,  it  is  impossible  that  any  other 
can  be  received ;  if  it  is  acknowledged,  it  may  even  carry  others  in  its 
train. 

Bearing  on  this  matter  are  the  thoughtful  words  of  Mr.  Henry  Eogers,  in 


Preface.  xxxiii 

beyond  the  power  of  one  who  should  Himself  rise  from 
the  dead  ?  If  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  was  the 
ostensible  and  the  declared  spring  of  a  movement  which 
in  all  its  features  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  it  was  unreal,  is  amply  accounted  for  on  the 
supposition  that  it  was  real,  we  have  then,  surely,  laid  in 
history  a  substantial  basis  upon  which  [the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  may  rest,  upon  which  it  becomes  intelligible,  and 
not  only  intelligible  but  consistent.  The  resurrection  of 
Christ  carries  with  it  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus;  and 
though  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  does  not  prove  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  it  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  a  link 
in  the  chain  of  preparation  for  it,  and  to  those  who  have 
already  believed  in  a  risen  Christ  it  comes  with  the  force 
of  an  additional  confirmation  of  that  which  has  otherwise 
been  found  to  be  true.  Miracles  were  regarded  by  our 

his  recent  work.  The  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible,  which  I  had  not  the 
pleasure  of  reading  till  after  these  Lectures  were  in  print,  but  in  which  I 
am  thankful  to  find  so  many  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  them  confirmed. 
"As  to  those  more  extensive  excisions  which  demand  the  surrender  of  all 
that  is  supernatural  in  the  Bible  (however  interfused  with  all  its  elements, 
and  as  incapable  of  being  rent  from  it  without  destroying  it,  as  the  system 
of  bones  or  arteries  from  the  human  body  without  destroying  that),  the 
advocate  of  the  Bible  will  justly  require,  before  even  listening  to  such  a 
demand,  that  science  shall  not  affirm,  but  demonstrate,  the  impossibility  or 
incredibility  of  miracles.  When  she  has  done  that,  1  for  one  acknowledge 
that  it  will  be  time  to  shut  the  book  as  a  hopeless  riddle  of  fable  or  false- 
hood, or  both,  which  it  will  be  hardly  worth  while  to  open  again.  Mean- 
time he  who  admits  in  any  degree  the  reasoning  in  these  lectures ;  namely, 
that  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  merely  human  forces,  ought 
not  to  feel  much  difficulty  in  this  last  matter ;  for  if  he  concedes  a  revela- 
tion at  all,  in  which  are  discovered  truths  and  facts  undiscoverable  by 
human  faculties,  and  conveyed  in  modes  and  forms  for  which  human 
nature  will  not  account,  he  has  already  admitted  a  miracle— &  fact  as  much 
in  the  face  of  that  'invariable  order'  of  nature,  and  'those  immutable 
series  of  antecedents  and  consequents'  on  which  the  objector  to  miracles 
insists,  as  any  that  can  be  conceived.  The  only  difference  is,  that  the 
miracle  here  has  been  wrought  in  the  sphere  of  mind,  and  not  in  that  of 
matter — a  difference  which,  to  a  man  who  knows  what  the  objection  to  all 
miracles  logically  involves,  will  not  affect  the  question." — pp.  422,  423. 


xxxiv  Preface. 

blessed  Lord  as  a  subordinate  proof  of  that  mission  which 
He  was  content  to  rest  on  the  truth  of  His  spoken  word : 
And  if  I  say  the,  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me  ? 9  But 
though  subordinate,  He  appealed  to  them  as  a  valid  proof : 
The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Fathers  name,  they  bear 
witness  of  me" l  The  person  of  Christ,  the  character  of 
Christ,  the  teaching  of  Christ,  must  ever  be  the  highest 
evidence  of  Him.  If  that  evidence  is  not  accepted  as  in 
the  truest  sense  miraculous,  in  the  truest  sense  Divine,  no 
miracles  can  suffice  to  prove  His  mission ;  but  it  may  be 
that  the  truth  of  His  spoken  words  implies  also  the  truth  of 
His  accomplished  works;  and  if  so,  we  cannot  truly  accept 
Him  without  accepting  also  the  message  of  His  works. 

It  remains  only  to  observe  that,  in  proportion  to  the 
value  of  the  evidence  which  the  historic  and  literary  de- 
velopment of  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ  supplies  as  to  its 
true  origin,  will  be  the  prospect  of  its  permanence  in  the 
world.  If  this  religion  is  indeed  Divine,  as  no  other  is 
Divine,  then  it  cannot  die.  As  Hooker  says,  "Truth,  of 
what  kind  soever,  is  by  no  kind  of  truth  gainsaid."  We 
are  therefore  in  no  degree  careful  as  to  the  issue  of  the 
various  questions  which  science  may  from  time  to  time 
propose.  It  is  possible  that  these  questions  can  receive  no 
conclusive  answer.  The  answer,  however,  so  far  as  it  is 
true,  must  be  consistent  with  the  Truth.  Or  they  may 
remain,  at  the  best,  nothing  more  than  theories  which  are 
but  partly  attested  by  facts.  How,  then,  can  the  reality 
of  that  religion  be  affected  thereby  which  is  based  not 
upon  theories  but  upon  facts  ?  If  the  coming  of  Christ 
was  the  explanation  of  a  marvellous  literature  which  must 
ever  remain  otherwise  a  hopeless  enigma,  and  if  the  rise 
of  Christian  literature,  and  the  development  of  history  for 
eighteen  centuries  since,  have  tended  to  prove  and  confirm 
the  truth  of  that  explanation  as  nothing  else  can  prove  it, 

9  St.  John  viii.  46.  J  St.  John  x.  25. 


Preface.  xxxv 

here  is  a  manifest  and  gigantic  fact  in  the  world's  history, 
which  cannot  be  set  aside,  however  it  may  be  interpreted. 
There  is,  and  can  be,  no  consistent  interpretation  of  this 
fact  but  one.  It  is  impossible  to  contemplate  it  fairly  and 
deny  its  significance.  The  very  existence  of  the  Eeligion 
of  the  Christ  is  itself  a  message  from  God.  No  discoveries 
as  to  the  ultimate  origin  of  man,  the  unity  of  the  human 
race,  the  antiquity  of  the  earth,  or  what  not,  can  avail  to 
set  aside  that  message.  On  these  and  other  points  it  is 
possible  we  may  be  mistaken.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the 
message,  if  indeed  it  is  from  God,  we  cannot.  At  least 
in  the  message  we  have  a  truth  which  may  suffice  to  be 
the  guide  of  life,  a  truth  that  we  can  live  and  die  by. 
Those  who  have  not  this  conviction  may  hold  their  judg- 
ment in  suspense,  and  live  if  they  can  without  a  religion 
they  can  trust,  undecided  about  everything,  and  chiefly 
about  the  nature  of  God  and  the  claims  of  Christ ;  but  to 
others  the  belief  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  we  have  the 
assured  fulfilment  of  the  promises  of  God  will  be  ever- 
more the  pledge  that  they  "shall  not  walk  in  darkness, 
but  shall  have  the  light  of  life? 

Such,  then,  as  it  seems,  is  the  inexhaustible  significance 
of  that  name  which  in  the  wisdom  of  God  was  joined 
inseparably  to  the  human  appellation  of  His  dear  Son; 
and  as  long  as  Christianity  retains  the  name  which  it  thus 
derives  from  Him,  it  will  bear  upon  its  surface  the  mark 
of  its  Divine  origin,  the  evidence  of  its  difference  from 
and  superiority  to  all  other  religions,  in  being  the  Eeligion 
of  the  Christ,  the  Keligion  of  Him  whose  way  was  Divinely 
prepared  before  Him,  and  whose  goings  forth  have  been 
from  of  oldj  from  everlasting.3 

8  St.  John  viii.  12.  3  Micah  v.  2. 

89,  ST.  GEORGE'S  SQUARE,  S.W., 
September  29,  1874. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

A  SECOND  edition  of  the  following  lectures  having 
been  called  for,  it  is  needful  to  make  a  few  observa- 
tions in  order  to  remove  some  misapprehensions  with  regard 
to  the  intention  of  the  argument.  It  must  be  obvious  to 
everyone  that  that  argument  makes  no  pretensions  to  being 
new;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  as  old  as  Christianity  itself; 
but  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  presented  is  perhaps 
more  or  less  original.  I  have  endeavoured  to  look  at  the 
Christ-character  of  our  blessed  Lord  in  the  light  of  the 
various  recent  theories  that  have  been  advanced  with 
respect  to  Him  and  to  the  origin  of  Christianity.  At  the 
same  time,  I  have  endeavoured  to  suggest  rather  than 
define  the  exact  bearing  of  the  argument  upon  any  of 
those  theories.  I  have  developed  it  in  relation  to  the  tone 
adopted  by  those  who  have  been  influenced  by  them,  and 
manifested  that  influence  in  the  current  literature  of  the 
day.  If  the  argument  is  sound,  it  is  impossible  that  those 
theories  can  stand.  In  proportion  as  the  weight  of  it  is 
admitted,  it  will  serve  to  correct  them  and  to  counteract 
their  tendency.  The  general  tendency  of  the  thought  of 
the  present  day  is  to  accept  Christianity  so  far  as  it  is 
naturally  good,  but  at  the  same  time  to  divest  it  of  and  to 
disengage  it  from  all  that  is  supernatural  and  not  to  be 
distinctly  referred  to  causes  that  we  can  satisfactorily  trace 
and  accurately  define. 

Now  the  importance  of  keeping  steadily  in  view  what 
is  virtually  meant  by  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  and  what 


xxxviii          Preface  to  the  Second  Edition. 

is  implied  in  the  very  word  Christianity,  is  seen  in  the 
fact  that  the  entire  framework  of  the  supernatural  is  in- 
volved in  the  due  recognition  of  it.  The  very  idea  of  a 
Christ  is  impossible  without  such  a  framework.  It  is 
impossible  to  affirm  that  the  notion  of  a  Christ  is  to  be  found 
outside  the  pale  of  revelation.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that 
it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament ;  for  if  not  found 
in  the  Old  Testament,  it  could  not  exist  in  the  New.  In 
fact,  the  mere  existence  of  the  New  Testament  is  a  proof 
of  the  existence  of  the  Christ-idea  in  the  Old.  But  the 
existence  of  this  Christ-idea  is  itself  an  evidence  of  the 
fact  of  prophecy;  for  that  which  the  Christ-idea  implies 
is  a  promise  conveyed  to  man  by  a  series  of  operations 
that  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  mere  working  of  nature. 
We  may  be  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  Messianic  expecta- 
tion among  the  Jews ;  we  cannot  deny  its  existence,  and 
we  cannot  explain  it  naturally.  In  proportion,  therefore, 
as  we  acknowledge  its  reality,  we  shall  be  compelled  to 
assume  its  supernatural  origin.  No  nation  could  have  had 
the  sort  of  expectation  which  the  Jewish  nation  had, 
unless  it  had  been  imparted  from  without;  and  in  con- 
firmation of  this  is  the  fact  that  no  other  nation  had  any 
such  hope.  The  mythology  and  theology  of  various  other 
nations  show  us  how  far  they  could  advance  naturally 
towards  the  formation  of  the  hope,  and  show  us  likewise 
the  point  to  which  they  could  not  advance.  The  history 
and  literature  of  the  Jewish  nation  show  us  that  they  had 
advanced  very  much  further  than  this,  and  in  fact  had 
advanced  so  far  that  without  a  supernatural  and  Divine 
revelation,  however  imparted,  it  would  have  been  impos- 
sible for  them  to  have  done  so.  The  index  of  this  degree 
of  advancement  was  the  fact  of  the  Christ-idea.  The 
Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  became  the  register  of  it 
for  all  time ;  and  it  is  a  register  that  we  cannot  obliterate, 
and  may  not,  without  injury  to  ourselves,  refuse  to  read. 


Preface  to  the  Second  Edition.  xxxix 

And  in  order  to  estimate  this  degree,  we  have  only  to 
imagine  what  our  condition  would  be  if  we  were  able 
to  blot  out  of  existence  the  entire  history  of  the  Christian 
church,  and  the  entire  literature  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  contrast  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  other 
literature  of  the  world  would  still  be  as  great  as  it  is 
now,  but  the  book  would  be  a  singularly  strange  and 
incomplete  one.  It  would  be  the  record  of  a  nation's 
mental  condition  for  the  period  of  a  thousand  years,  who 
had  believed  themselves  exceptionally  near  to  God,  and 
throughout  that  period  ever  on  the  verge  of  some  great 
event  which  should  place  them  at  the  summit  of  power 
and  glory.  Their  law,  their  history,  their  poetry,  their 
prophecy,  would  alike  bear  witness  to  this  impression ;  and 
what  is  more,  we  should  be  able  to  mark  the  exact  period 
at  which  the  nation  ceased  to  produce  those  documents 
which  gave  expression  to  the  hope.  We  should  also  be 
able  to  affirm,  that  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  after  the 
latest  book  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written,  the  people 
did  not  cease  to  be  animated  with  the  same  hope  which 
had  been  the  stay  of  their  forefathers.  But  we  should  also 
be  able  to  say  that  the  whole  thing  had  been  proved  a 
delusion,  for  that  the  stream  of  history  had  gone  on  and 
had  left  their  hope  an  unrealised  dream,  till  they  had  grown 
utterly  ashamed  and  weary  of  it,  and  had  begun  to  regard 
their  national  history  as  a  romance,  and  their  national 
literature  as  a  mistake. 

But  we  cannot  thus  blot  out  of  existence  the  literature 
of  the  New  Testament,  or  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church  ;  and  consequently  the  existence  of  this  literature 
and  history  has  completely  altered  the  relation  in  which 
the  world  must  ever  stand  to  the  literature  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  book  which  before  was  singularly  strange 
and  incomplete  has  now  become  invested  with  an  im- 
probable and  unexpected  significance.  And  yet  it  was  not 


xl  Preface  to  the  Second  Edition. 

possible  for  any  man,  or  any  combination  of  men,  designedly 
to  bring  about  this  significance ;  it  was  wholly  and  entirely 
the  work  of  history,  and  the  gradual  result  of  the  progress 
of  events.  The  kind  of  supplement  the  New  Testament 
has  supplied  to  the  Old  is  unique  in  the  literature  of  the 
world. 

What  then  is  the  interpretation  of  this  fact  ?  The  rise 
of  Christianity  has  given  a  meaning  to  the  Old  Testament 
which  it  never  had  before,  and  which  nothing  else  could 
give  it.  History  has  shown  that  there  was  something  in 
the  national  life  of  Israel  which  there  would  not  otherwise 
have  been.  It  is,  however,  beyond  the  power  of  any  nation 
to  anticipate  its  own  future  as  Israel  did,  no  less  than  it 
was  beyond  the  power  of  Israel  to  fulfil  its  own  anticipa- 
tions. The  fact  that  the  anticipations  were  both  cherished 
and  fulfilled  can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  assumption 
that  the  development  of  history  is  not  a  blind  succession 
of  events,  but  a  connected  chain  of  circumstances,  arranged 
according  to  a  plan,  and  arranged  for  a  particular  purpose, 
and  on  this  assumption  there  is  only  one  way  open  to 
us  of  explaining  the  phenomena  in  question.  The  plan 
which  is  so  clearly  marked  was  designed  by  God,  and  the 
purpose  He  had  in  view  was  the  indication  of  the  one 
Man  who  should  receive  the  homage  and  adoration  of 
the  world.  To  this  end  the  hope  of  a  Messiah  was  given 
to  Israel,  and  the  course  of  history  demonstrated  the  fact 
that  the  hope  was  not  fallacious,  but  was  confirmed  by 
the  development  of  events  in  a  way  which  it  was  greatly 
beyond  the  power  of  man  or  nature  to  bring  about  or  to 
anticipate.  And  if  it  is  asked  what  right  we  have  to 
make  such  an  assumption,  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  the 
assumption  is  forced  upon  us  when  we  contemplate  the 
known  facts  of  secular  and  sacred  history.  In  no  branch 
of  the  history  of  the  world  is  there  any  instance  of  the 
kind  of  correspondence  between  the  facts  of  Christianity 


Preface  to  the  Second  Edition.  xli 

and  the  history  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  kind  of 
relation  there  is  between  the  literature  of  Israel  and  the 
literature  of  the  New  Testament  that  we  meet  with  in  the 
history  and  literature  of  the  Bible.  The  broad  features  of 
both  are  markedly  distinct.  Supposing,  therefore,  that  we 
had  a  theory  that  was  adequate  to  solve  the  problem  of 
the  entire  history  of  the  world,  such  a  theory  would  be 
totally  inadequate  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  before 
us,  arising  from  the  facts  of  Bible  history.  Consequently 
this  would  be  the  crucial  test  which  would  serve  to  falsify 
our  theory.  This  particular  problem  would  still  demand 
an  entirely  different  solution.  Nor  would  the  difficulty 
be  lessened  by  any  attempts  to  place  the  phenomena  of 
sacred  history  on  the  same  footing  with  those  of  secular 
history,  because  the  facts  to  which  we  now  allude  are 
precisely  those  which  obstinately  resist  all  such  attempts. 
The  argument  adopted  is  of  the  broadest  possible  cha- 
racter, and  is  absolutely  independent  of  all  narrow  in- 
terpretations and  partial  issues.  If,  therefore,  we  would 
find  a  theory  that  is  capable  of  application  to  the  facts  of 
sacred  no  less  than  those  of  secular  history  we  must  adopt 
the  assumption  in  point.  In  fact  we  must  make  two 
assumptions,  neither  of  which  is  capable  of  absolute  proof, 
but  both  of  which  are  in  the  highest  degree  reasonable. 
First,  we  must  assume  that  there  is  a  God ;  and  secondly, 
we  must  assume  that  He  has  spoken  and  revealed  Himself 
in  history,  so  that  we  may  be  enabled  to  arrive  at  some 
knowledge  of  His  purposes  through  the  clear  message  of 
history.  Granting  these  two  assumptions,  the  argument 
of  the  following  lectures  may  be  regared  as  virtually  con- 
clusive. If  God  has  spoken  in  history,  He  has  spoken  in 
the  broad  facts  before  us  in  a  way  that  He  has  spoken 
nowhere  else;  and  the  result  is  that  the  testimony  thus 
given  to  Christ  is  such  as  has  not  been  given  in  any  second 
instance,  and  it  is  a  testimony  that  is  unmistakable.  The 


xlii  Preface  to  the  Second  Edition. 

evidence  is  of  a  highly  elaborate  and  complex  character ; 
it  is  cumulative  and  convergent  to  a  degree  that  is  entirely 
without  parallel.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  a  perfect  arch 
which  rests  on  the  independent  foundations  of  a  twofold 
history  and  a  twofold  literature. 

It  must  be  understood,  therefore,  that  the  stress  which 
is  laid  upon  the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus  is  so  laid  for 
its  ulterior  rather  than  its  primary  importance.  It  has 
been  said  that  we  have  nothing  now  to  do  with  the  Mes- 
sianic character  of  Jesus  which  had  reference  to  a  past 
condition  of  thought.  That  may  or  may  not  be  true.  Into 
this  question  we  have  not  intended  to  enter.  The  Mes- 
sianic character  of  Jesus  was  that  to  which  Christianity 
historically  owed  its  existence.  But  the  Messianic  cha- 
racter of  Jesus  is  impossible  without  the  agency  of  the 
supernatural  before  and  above  and  beneath  and  around  it. 
In  accepting  that  character,  as  we  are  bound  to  accept  it, 
as  the  historic  and  originating  impulse  of  Christianity,  we 
are  committed  to  a  recognition  of  the  supernatural.  We 
cannot  escape  from  it.  We  are  placed  in  its  immediate 
presence.  It  may  be  very  true  that  the  Messianic  cha- 
racter of  Jesus  is  not  His  only  character,  nor  that  character 
which  has  most  direct  reference  to  ourselves,  nor  that 
which  is  ultimately  destined  to  have  the  greatest  influence 
upon  the  world,  but  it  is  one  which  is  inalienably  and 
unalterably  His,  and  therefore  it  is  one  which  compels  us 
to  acknowledge  the  supernatural  in  Him,  and  serves  to 
assure  us  that  whatever  aspect  we  regard  Christ  in  must 
be  a  faulty  and  a  perverted  aspect,  if  in  it  the  operation 
of  the  supernatural  is  lost  sight  of  or  obscured. 

To  acknowledge  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  tantamount 
to  acknowledging  Him  as  the  chosen  of  God ;  but  He  can- 
not be  the  chosen  of  God  unless  God  has  not  only  selected 
Him  from  among  men,  but  also  made  the  fact  of  His  choice 
known  to  man;  and  He  cannot  have  made  His  choice 


Preface  to  tJte  Second  Edition.  xliii 

known  to  man  but  by  special  and  direct  revelation,  which 
involves  the  agency  of  special  and  supernatural  means  of 
communicating  His  will.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  that 
we  should  accept  Christ,  or  accept  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
without  accepting  also  the  agency  of  the  supernatural. 
But  if  we  once  accept  the  supernatural  in  the  Christ  idea, 
and  acknowledge  Christ  as  a  supernatural  person,  we  can 
have  but  little  hesitation  in  acknowledging  the  presence 
of  the  supernatural  in  the  words  and  actions  of  Christ; 
and  hence  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Christ  functions  as 
a  part  only  of  the  character  of  Jesus  becomes  a  sufficient 
guarantee  for  our  due  submission  and  allegiance  to  all  that 
comes  to  us  on  the  approved  authority  of  Christ,  and  with 
the  fall  sanction  of  His  name ;  for  the  actual  presence  of 
the  supernatural  in  Jesus  is  the  proof  that  what  He  so 
has  He  has  for  ever.  He  cannot  have  been  a  supernatural 
person  once,  and  have  ceased  to  be  so  now.  His  authority 
must  be  permanent  until  it  is  superseded  by  authority 
equally  supernatural.  A  wider  acquaintance  with  the 
sphere  of  the  natural  cannot  avail  to  set  aside  the  super- 
natural, or  intrinsically  to  modify  our  relation  to  Christ ; 
for  He  must  reign,  till  He  hath  put  all  enemies  under  His 
feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death. 
And  not  till  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  Him,  shall 
the  Son  also  Himself  be  subject  unto  Him  that  put  all 
things  under  Him,  that  God  may  "be  all  in  all.1 

It  is  obvious  that  if  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Christ  whom 
God  had  promised  to  send,  then  the  historic  manifestation 
of  Jesus  becomes  the  type  and  pattern  of  His  continual 
method  of  action,  and  of  His  permanent  relation  to  us. 
He  is  not  only  the  starting-point  of  our  renewed  existence, 
the  source  of  our  regenerated  life,  but  He  is  also  the  goal 
to  which  we  must  ever  return,  the  anchor  of  our  souls  both 
sure  and  steadfast,  in  faithful  and  firm  attachment  to  whom 
1  1  Cor.  xv.  25-27. 


xliv  Preface  to  the  Second  Edition. 

our  bark  may  at  all  times  ride  securely  amid  all  the  changes 
and  chances  and  the  storm  and  sunshine  of  life.  He  is 
not  only  the  express  image  of  the  Father,  manifested  once 
for  all  in  the  person  of  a  man,  but,  in  as  far  as  He  is  the 
true  manifestation  of  God,  He  is  a  manifestation  which 
can  never  be  altered,  which  must  be  independent  alike  of 
essential  modification  and  of  continual  development.  He 
must  be  the  abiding  centre  and  source,  the  enduring  token 
and  pledge,  of  all  the  promises  of  God.  He  must,  in  one 
word,  be  Jesus  Christ  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and 
for  ever? 

It  can  hardly  be  needful  to  remind  the  reader  that  I 
have  purposely  endeavoured  in  these  lectures  to  divest 
myself  of  all  Christian  predilections,  and  have  tried  to 
frame  the  argument  from  an  entirely  independent  point  of 
view,  in  order  to  give  the  greater  weight  to  those  conclu- 
sions which  appear  to  me  to  be  unavoidable.  I  can  truly 
say  of  my  method  of  writing  as  St.  John  said  of  his  design  : 
These  things  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that  believing  ye  might 
have  life  through  His  name? 

2  Heb.  xiii.  8.  3  St.  John  xx.  31. 


89,  ST.  GEORGE'S  SQUARE,  S.W., 
June  1,  1875. 


LECTURE   I. 

ANTICIPATION  OF  THE   CHRIST  IN  HEATHEN 
NATIONS. 


THE  registering  of  doubts  hath  two  excellent  uses :  the  one,  that  it  saveth 
philosophy  from  errors  and  falsehoods;  when  that  which  is  not  fully 
appearing  is  not  collected  into  assertion,  wherehy  error  might  draw  error, 
but  reserved  in  doubt :  the  other,  that  the  entry  of  doubts  are  as  so  many 
suckers  or  sponges  to  draw  use  of  knowledge ;  in  so  much  as  that  which, 
if  doubts  had  not  preceded,  a  man  should  never  have  advised,  but  passed 
it  over  without  note,  by  the  suggestion  and  solicitation  of  doubts,  is  made 
to  be  attended  and  applied.  But  both  these  commodities  do  scarcely 
countervail  an  inconvenience  which  will  intrude  itself,  if  it  be  not 
debarred;  which  is,  that  when  a  doubt  is  once  received,  men  labour 
rather  how  to  keep  it  a  doubt  still,  than  how  to  solve  it ;  and  accordingly 
bend  their  wits.  Of  this  we  see  the  familiar  example  in  lawyers  and 
scholars,  both  which,  if  they  have  once  admitted  a  doubt,  it  goeth  ever 
after  authorised  for  a  doubt.  But  that  use  of  wit  and  knowledge  is  to  be 
allowed,  which  laboureth  to  make  doubtful  things  certain,  and  not  those 
which  labour  to  make  certain  things  doubtful.  Therefore  these  kalendars 
of  doubts  I  commend  as  excellent  things ;  so  that  there  be  this  caution 
used,  that  when  they  be  thoroughly  sifted  and  brought  to  resolution,  they 
be  from  thenceforth  omitted,  discarded,  and  not  continued  to  cherish  and 
encourage  men  in  doubting. — BACON,  Advancement  of  Learning. 


LECTURE  I. 

As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water  brooks,  so  panteih  my  soul  after 
thee,  0  God.— Ps.  xlii.  1. 

M  THE  origin  of  Christianity  has  often  been  found  an 
J-  interesting  and  a  fruitful  subject  of  inquiry  in  our 
time.  Many  treatises  have  been  written,  and  many  theories 
advanced,  about  it.  Any  one  who  could  invent  an  entirely 
new  theory,  whether  plausible  or  not,  would  probably  meet 
with  many  persons  who  would  be  willing  to  listen  to  him. 
For,  whatever  may  have  been  its  actual  origin,  there  can 
be  no  question  that  Christianity  in  itself  is  the  most 
remarkable  phenomenon  that  history  presents  to  our  con- 
templation. It  has  already  far  outlived  in  its  duration  the 
utmost  limits  of  time  that  can  be  assigned  to  the  dominion 
of  ancient  Eome.  Though  its  position  in  the  world  has 
ever  been  one  of  antagonism,  and  therefore  of  peril,  it  has 
survived  the  most  desperate  assaults  whether  from  without 
or  from  within ;  and  now,  in  the  nineteenth  century  of  its 
existence,  shows  no  signs  of  a  slackening  interest  for  the 
imagination,  or  of  a  declining  influence  on  the  human 
mind. 

Nor  is  it  hard  to  see  the  reason  of  this.  For  Christianity 
appeals  alike  to  the  deepest  instincts  and  the  highest 
aspirations  of  mankind.  It  lays  its  hand  upon  the  moral 
nature,  the  social  constitution,  and  the  undefined  and 
mysterious  spiritual  sensibilities  of  man.  It  concerns 
itself  not  only  with  life  here,  but  professes  also  to  have  the 
promise  of  life  hereafter ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  almost 


4  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

endless  variety  of  answers  that  might  be  given  to  the 
anterior  question,  What  is  Christianity  ? — no  two  inde- 
pendent minds  probably  understanding  thereby  or  deriving 
therefrom  ideas  in  all  respects  identical — that  which  the 
term  implies  is  sufficiently  definite  to  be  easily  intelligible 
to  all,  however  widely  their  theoretical  conceptions  or  their 
individual  sympathies  may  differ. 

Indeed,  it  is  no  slight  indication  of  the  fascinating 
power  exercised  by  Christianity,  that  men  abandon  with 
extreme  reluctance  their  personal  connection  with  the 
name  of  Christian.  Those  who  have  broken  loose  from  all 
commonly  received  and  traditional  forms  of  belief,  and 
those  also  who  live  in  habitual  disregard  of  the  one 
ordinance  which  was  designed  from  the  first  to  be  the  mark 
of  Christian  fellowship,  are  yet  jealously  sensitive  as  to 
the  appropriation  of  this  name.  "All  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christians,"  to  adopt  the  large-hearted  language 
of  our  collect,  would  embrace  a  considerable  number  that 
could  not  conveniently  be  assigned  to  any  recognised 
denomination.  Some  of  those  who  are  uncompromising  in 
their  treatment  of  many  things  that  large  bodies,  or  even 
the  great  mass  of  Christians,  hold  most  dear,  are  yet  second 
to  none  in  their  zeal  to  retain  the  name. 

We  have  no  wish  to  narrow  or  to  limit  the  claim  of  any 
man  to  be  so  who  desires  to  regard  himself  as  a  disciple 
of  the  Son  of  man.  It  is  He  to  whom  all  judgment  has 
been  committed,  and  with  whom,  therefore,  we  would 
gladly  leave  it ;  but  we  may  safely  observe  that  a  Christi- 
anity which  repudiates  Christ  is  a  contradiction  in  terms, 
and  that  consequently,  first  or  last,  the  doctrine  and  person 
of  a  Christ  must  be  a  prominent  feature  of  Christianity, 
however  interpreted.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  origin 
of  Christianity,  it  was  intimately  associated  with  the  person 
of  Christ,  for  Christianity  is  the  religion  of  the  Christ. 
Whatever  differences  may  have  existed  between  the  teach- 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  5 

ing  of  Christ  and  the  subsequent  developments  of  that 
teaching  among  His  disciples,  it  will  probably  not  be  denied 
that  the  impulse  known  as  Christianity  is  rightly  and 
directly  traceable  to  His  teaching  and  influence.  At  all 
events,  we  cannot  dissociate  Christ  from  the  subsequent 
and  existing  phenomena  of  the  religion  which  bears  His 
name.  He  is  Himself  the  most  prominent  and  conspicuous 
feature  in  connection  with  it. 

The  name  of  Christ,  however,  suggests  an  office  rather 
than  a  person.  It  implies  the  supposed  fulfilment  of 
various  preconceived  ideas.  The  correspondence  of  Jesus 
with  the  ideal  person  and  character  of  the  Christ  was  the 
position  assumed  by  the  earliest  preachers  of  Christianity. 
And  as  this  is  a  fact  which  admits  of  no  rational  doubt,  it 
is  clear  that  there  must  have  been  certain  predisposing 
causes  to  render  the  spread  of  Christianity  possible.  A 
belief  of  which  one  of  the  main  features  was  the  realisation 
in  Jesus  of  a  character  at  once  clearly  defined  and  readily 
intelligible  could  not  have  achieved  any  progress  in  the 
world,  if  there  had  not  been  adequate  preparation  made 
for  it  in  the  dissemination  of  such  previous  ideas. 

Because  it  was  not  the  personal  character  of  Jesus  that 
won  its  way  among  mankind,  but  the  fact  that  in  His 
character  was  fulfilled  the  conception  of  the  Christ.,  In 
the  case  of  the  Jewish  nation  this  is  sufficiently  manifest, 
since  in  that  nation  there  had  existed  for  many  centuries 
the  conviction  that  a  person  known  as  the  Messiah  was 
eventually  to  arise.  The  whole  conflict  of  Christianity 
with  Judaism  consisted,  not  in  the  maintenance  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  Christ,  but  in  the  establishment  of  the  claims 
of  Jesus  to  be  regarded  as  the  Christ. 

Nor  can  it  have  been  very  different  even  with  the 
Gentiles,  who  were  led  to  believe  in  Jesus.  We  cannot 
affirm  of  them  that  there  were  certain  definite  notions  of 
a  coming  deliverer  existing  in  their  minds,  and  that  they 


6  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

believed  in  Jesus  because  He  fulfilled  those  notions ;  but 
we  may  truly  say  that  in  "every  case  their  belief  in  Him 
involved  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah  to  whom 
the  Jews  looked  forward.  Of  this  there  is  abundant 
evidence.  It  does  appear,  however,  that  there  were  sundry 
latent  ideas  prevalent  in  the  ancient  world,  which  may 
have  had  the  effect  in  no  small  degree  of  disposing  the 
popular  mind  to  accept  more  readily  the  announcement  of 
One  who  especially  claimed  to  realise  the  anticipations  of 
His  own  people.  When  we  look  back  over  the  mass  of 
current  traditions  afloat  in  the  ancient  world,  the  attitude 
of  expectation  indicated  in  many  ways,  the  impression 
conveyed  by  poetry,  mythology,  philosophy,  and  literature, 
that  a  want  was  felt  in  our  nature,  and  a  hope  that  it  might 
be  supplied  was  cherished,  we  can  see  that  there  was  much 
even  in  the  heathen  world  that  answered  to  the  Jewish 
anticipation  of  a  Messiah,  and  that  this  condition  of  mind 
was  one  specially  favourable  to  the  preaching  of  a  Christ, 
who  was  proclaimed  as  the  good  news  of  God  to  mankind. 
And  indeed  to  the  Christian,  who  is  fully  persuaded  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  all  that  He  professed  to  be,  and  that  in 
Him  there  is  the  present  possession  of  as  much  happiness 
as  our  condition  admits  of,  and  the  future  promise  of  all 
that  we  can  desire,  it  is  not  possible  to  survey  the  monu- 
ments of  religious  thought  in  any  nation  or  language,  and 
not  discern  indications  of  a  mental  state  that  bears  col- 
lateral witness  to  the  reality  of  the  want  which  Jesus  came 
to  supply ;  if,  indeed,  it  does  not  manifest  what  may  fairly 
be  regarded  as  the  unconscious  hope  of  His  coming.  There 
is  independent  and  corroborative  evidence  borne  to  Him  by 
many  writers  that  were  ignorant  of  His  name  and  by  many 
religious  systems  that  are  antagonistic  to  Him.  What 
St.  Paul  says  to  the  Eomans  is  doubtless  more  or  less  true 
of  every  nation,  and  of  all  religions,  that  that  which  may 
~be  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them  ;  for  God  hath  shewed 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  7 

it  unto  them}  It  is  not  given  to  all  to  bear  equal  testimony, 
but  there  are  continually  traces  of  a  testimony  borne,  and 
in  its  general  results  it  is  neither  discordant  nor  incomplete. 
And  we  may  briefly  characterise  it  as  twofold.  First, 
there  is  the  universal  consciousness  of  a  deep  and  radical 
defect  in  our  constitution,  which,  if  not  openly  confessed, 
is  at  any  rate  sufficiently  betrayed.  And  secondly,  there 
is  frequently  revealed  a  kind  of  spontaneous  impression  or 
conviction  that  help,  if  it  comes  at  all,  must  come  from 
without;  that  it  is  not  competent  to  human  nature  to 
regenerate  or  emancipate  itself.  It  is  not,  of  course, 
affirmed  that  either  of  these  propositions  is  distinctly  and 
broadly  stated  in  so  many  words,  but  that,  turn  where  we 
will,  we  are  continually  being  confronted  with  that  which 
tends  to  establish  them.  Arid,  in  fact,  this  testimony  is 
the  more  remarkable,  from  the  manifestly  undesigned  and 
unintentional  manner  in  which  it  is  borne.  Human  nature, 
in  spite  of  itself,  bears  witness  to  the  depth  of  its  own 
wound.  There  can,  one  would  think,  be  no  question  about 
this.  Every  form  of  ancient  civilisation  bears  evident 
token  of  sin,  and  also  of  the  consciousness  of  sin.  Eites 
and  ceremonies,  laws,  manners,  and  customs,  which,  after 
all  possible  allowance  has  been  made  for  diversity  of 
feeling  and  opinion,  can  only  be  regarded  as  indications 
of  moral  corruption,  are  common  enough  in  the  records  of 
every  ancient  nation.  Whether  we  look  to  Egypt  or 
Assyria,  to  Persia  or  to  Greece,  to  India  or  to  the  north  of 
Europe,  the  witness  is  unfaltering,  not  only  as  to  the 
depravity  of  man,  but  also  as  to  a  certain  misgiving 
within  the  heart  that  all  was  not  right.  The  hideous 
forms  of  sacrifice  which  confront  us  in  many  quarters  are 
doubtless  to  be  interpreted  thus,  and  cannot  fairly  be 
interpreted  otherwise.8  If  sacrifice  implies  a  desire  to 

1  Rom.  i.  19. 

2  See,  for  example,  G.  W.  Cox,  Mythology  of  the  Aryan  Nations,  ii.  144, 


8  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

surrender  what  is  most  precious,  and  so  far  expresses  a 
good  intention  and  a  noble  effort,  it  implies  likewise  a 
conviction  that  to  do  so  is  absolutely  necessary.  But 
why  necessary,  unless  because  no  other  apparent  means 
are  open  whereby  to  redress  the  balance  of  right  which 
conscience  declares  to  need  and  to  demand  rectification  ? 
All  analysis  of  the  theory  of  sacrifice  must  ultimately 
result  in  this,  that  it  is  a  witness  to  disorder  within,  for 
which  it  appears  to  promise  the  only  available  remedy. 
And  when  sacrifice  takes  the  more  awful  and  revolting 
form  that  it  assumed  among  the  Phoenicians  and  the 
Aztecs,  it  only  shows  the  more  plainly  how  deep  and 
terrible  the  disorder  is.  But  there  can  be  no  question 
that,  long  before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era, 
human  nature  had  borne  the  most  conclusive  testimony  to 
the  existence  of  such  disorder,  and  by  many  a  blood-stained 
rite  had  confessed  to  the  consciousness  of  it.  Wherever, 
therefore,  the  Gospel  of  Christ  came,  it  encountered  a 
condition  of  mind  which,  being  keenly  alive  to  a  sense  of 
want  within,  was  so  far  prepared  to  receive  it.  To  make 
use  of  the  vivid  expression  of  an  anonymous  writer,  every 
one  who  embraced  the  Gospel  found  that  it  "supplied  a 
positive  to  the  negative  in  himself."3 

When,  however,  we  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the 
other  kind  of  testimony  which  was  borne  rather  to  the 
hope  than  to  the  need  of  a  Eedeemer,  it  is  perhaps  possible 
to  speak  with  less  confidence.  A  vast  field  at  once  opens 
out  to  our  contemplation,  which  we  can  only  glance  at  in 
the  most  cursory  manner.  There  have  been  three  principal 


and  the  note ;  also  the  elaborate  essay  of  Dr.  Kalisch  on  Sacrifice,  prefixed 
to  his  Commentary  on  Leviticus  ;  and  the  Dictionary  of  Science,  Literature, 
and  Art,  art.  "  Sacrifice."  See  also  Hardwick's  Christ  and  other  Masters, 
part  ii.  p.  157  seq. 

a  A  reviewer  in  the  Edinburgh  Courant,  quoted  by  S.  Baring-Gould, 
Origin  and  Development  of  Reliyious  Belief,  part  ii.  p.  8. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  9 

methods  of  interpreting  the  mythological  legends  of  Greece. 
They  have  been  interpreted  on  rationalistic  principles,  as 
Lord  Bacon4  and  others  have  explained  them  ;  or  they  have 
been  regarded  as  distorted  versions  of  historical  occurrences, 
or  in  some  cases  as  perverted  accounts  of  historical  events. 
Latterly,  however,  the  tendency  has  been  to  look  at  them 
in  their  relation  to  the  mythological  tales  of  other  countries, 
as  portions  merely  of  a  vast  whole.  And  so  it  has  been 
supposed  that  one  principle  pervades  them  all.  This 
method  of  interpretation  is  known  as  the  solar  theory.5 
The  daily  natural  phenomena  of  dawn  and  daybreak,  sun- 
rise, noontide,  and  sunset,  and  of  the  varying  seasons  in 
their  perpetual  recurrence,  having  been  originally  expressed 
in  sensuous  language,  which  the  mind  afterwards  outgrew, 
became  ultimately  invested  with  those  very  passions  and 
accidents  which  the  language  literally  suggested.  And 
thus  the  foundation  was  laid  of  a  copious  mythology,  in 
which  the  repetition  of  the  same  ideas  in  various  forms  is 
perpetually  discernible.  This  theory  may  or  may  not 
eventually  be  regarded  as  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
rise  of  the  various  myths ;  it  is  not  even  imagined  that  it 
expresses  the  way  in  which  they  were  actually  understood 
either  by  the  poets  who  gave  them  their  existing  form,  or 
by  the  people  who  took  delight  in  the  repetition  of  them. 
However  true  it  may  be  as  a  conjecture  of  their  origin,  it 
cannot  for  a  moment  be  accepted  as  the  actual  message 
which  they  bore  to  the  world  at  large.  It  would  be  quite 
as  reasonable  to  assign  to  them  a  directly  Christian  meaning, 
as  to  pretend  that  their  recondite  etymological  significance 
was  that  commonly  understood.  The  poetical  interpre- 
tations of  comparative  mythology  are  the  natural  fruit  of 
comparative  philology,  and  could  not  have  been  originated 

4  In  The  Wisdom  of  the  Ancients,  and  elsewhere. 

5  Cox,  i.  53,  seq.;  ii.  108,  109,  et  passim;  Gubernatis,  Zoological  My- 
thology, &c. 


IO  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

till  it  had  given  them  birth.  We  are  therefore  at  liberty 
to  regard  the  ancient  mythological  legends  in  their  literal 
form,  as  we  may  be  sure  they  were  popularly  regarded,  and 
consider  to  what  extent  they  may  have  served  to  prepare 
men's  minds  to  receive  the  doctrine  and  religion  of  the 
Christ. 

And  here  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  all  mythologies 
represented  the  gods  as  holding  intercourse  with  men. 
They  had  their  offspring  among  men,  their  friends  and 
companions  among  men,  their  enemies  among  men.  The 
teaching  of  mythology  clearly  was,  that  the  notion  of 
communion  with  the  gods  was  neither  absurd  nor  incon- 
ceivable. And  so  far  as  this  mythology  expressed  on  the 
one  hand  the  popular  sentiment,  and  on  the  other  served 
to  create  and  foster  it,  we  may  believe  that  to  a  certain 
extent  it  acted  favourably  rather  than  unfavourably  in 
predisposing  men  to  receive  the  message  of  the  Incarnation. 
In  like  manner,  the  notion  of  assistance  bestowed  in  an 
unexpected  and  supernatural  way  was  by  no  means  un- 
familiar to  mythology,  and  would  therefore  be  subservient 
to  the  doctrine  of  a  Divine  Redeemer,  who  came  to  succour 
the  weak,  and  to  raise  the  fallen.6  And,  finally,  the  natural 
inference  derived  from  mythology,  when  regarded  in  its 
widest  survey,  is  suggestive  of  the  truth  that  there  are 
sources  of  wealth  and  strength  for  man  in  heaven  which 
are  not  to  be  found  on  earth ;  and  that,  if  he  is  to  be 
delivered  at  all,  it  must  be  by  a  power  exerted  from 
without  him,  and  not  merely  by  strength  developed  from 
within. 

It  appears  then,  that  we  may  fairly  say  that,  notwith- 
standing much  that  was  in  the  highest  degree  revolting  in 
mythology,  and  much  that  had  undoubtedly  begun  to  pall 
upon  the  taste  of  the  healthier  and  the  loftier  minds,  there 

6  Cf.  Hardwick,  Christ  and  other  Masters,  part  ii.  p.  160  seq.  The  pass- 
age is  too  long  to  quote,  but  it  is  well  worthy  of  reference. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  1  1 

was  also  that  in  it  which  would  serve  as  a  sufficiently 
prepared  basis  whereon  to  rear  the  superstructure  of  faith 
in  a  Divine  Son  of  God  and  Eedeemer  of  men,  who  should 
save  His  people  with  a  mighty  salvation,  when  His  advent 
was  proclaimed  upon  sufficient  testimony. 

While,  however,  the  effect  of  the  ancient  mythology,  both 
as  regards  the  disgust  and  loathing  it  must  have  excited, 
and  the  relations  of  beings  of  a  higher  nature  to  man  with 
which  it  may  have  made  men's  minds  familiar,  may  have 
been  on  the  whole  favourable  as  a  preparation  for  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  it  does  not  appear  that  at  any 
time  it  had  sufficed  to  arouse  the  distinct  anticipations  of 
a  Eedeemer  to  come,  which  obviously  did  exist  among  the 
Jews.  We  do  indeed  discover  tokens  of  such  anticipations 
from  time  to  time  ;7  but  these  were  probably  derived  rather 
than  original,  and  are  perhaps  to  be  referred  mainly  to  the 
influence  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  when  they  had  become 
widely  extended  by  means  of  the  Alexandrine  version. 
The  effect  of  mythological  teaching,  therefore,  would  not 
be  so  much  of  a  positive  as  a  negative  character,  regarded 
as  a  preparation  for  Christ.  It  would  have  prepared  the 
mind  for  the  reception  of  the  idea,  but  could  not  have 
communicated  the  idea  itself.  Still,  we  must  carefully 
bear  in  mind  what  it  could  not  do,  in  order  that  we  may 

7  The  vetus  et  constans  op'mio  of  Suetonius  (  Vesp.  iv.  ;  cf.  Tac.  Hist.  v. 
13)  must  refer  among  others  to  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  seventy  weeks, 
then  more  than  500  years  old.  Cf.  Josephus,  B.  J.  vi.  5,  4,  etc.;  also  the 
third  Sibylline  Oracle. 

Kal  TOT'  £0i>os  /j.eyd\oio  GeoO  ird\i  KapTepbv  &TTCU, 

ot  irat>T€(r<rt  ppOTOi<ri  fiiov  Ka6odriyol  &TOJTCU.  194-5 

Kal  TOTC  ST?  Geos  otipav66ev  Tr^ui/'ei  ^SacrtX^a.  286 


al  TOVTO  XpOVOlS  1T€ptT€\\OfJ,^VOlCriV 

&p£ei,  Kal  Kaivbv  <rr)K&i>  0eou  &p£eT  eyelpciv.  288-  290 

Kal  r6r'  d?r'  yeXioio  9e6s  Tr^u^ei  /3a(nX?7a 

6s  ira<rav  yalav  rratfcret  iroXfyoio  /ca/coio.  652-3 


12  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

the  better  understand  what  was  actually  done.  In  pro- 
portion to  the  poverty  of  the  soil  will  be  our  astonishment 
at  the  beauty  and  luxuriance  of  the  plant  which  afterwards 
took  root  in  it. 

We  need  not  in  any  degree  be  anxious  to  dispute  the 
position  that  fragments  of  truth  are  to  be  found  in  all 
religions.  The  reverse  is  rather  the  case ;  for  it  is  the 
very  presence  of  these  elements  of  truth  that  constituted 
the  natural  basis  on  which  alone  it  was  possible  for  the 
Gospel  to  be  reared.  The  points,  however,  on  which  it  is 
desirable  to  arrive  at  clear  and  definite  notions,  if  we  can, 
are  these :  The  way  in  which  we  are  to  regard  the  rise  and 
development  of  these  elements  of  truth  as  we  find  them 
existing,  and  the  way  in  which  they  may  be  compared  and 
contrasted  with  other  elements  that  we  recognise  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments. 

It  may  surely  then  be  accepted  as  an  axiom,  that  what- 
ever of  truth  there  is  in  any  man,  or  in  any  nation,  is 
derived  from  the  fountain  of  truth,  and  is  not  an  inde- 
pendent possession  of  the  mind  itself.  The  eye  perceives 
the  light ;  there  is  no  light  in  the  eye  but  that  which  it 
perceives,  or,  having  perceived,  retains.  So  in  the  human 
mind,  there  is  no  truth  but  that  which  it  derives  and 
appropriates  from  the  fountain  of  truth.  The  mind  is 
naturally  constituted  to  apprehend  the  truth ;  and  when 
the  channel  is  unimpeded  truth  flows  in  and  is  apprehended. 
The  truth  reveals  itself.  The  mind  rejoices  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  having  discovered  the  truth ;  but  with  equal  or  with 
greater  propriety  we  may  say  that  the  truth  has  revealed 
itself  to  the  mind.  And  if  truth  is  the  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  the  Divine  Being,  every  such  manifestation  of  truth 
may  be  regarded  as  a  true  revelation  from  Him.  Whatever 
indications,  therefore,  we  find  of  a  sense  of  sin,  and  of  the 
undefined  terrors  incidental  to  it,  notwithstanding  the 
hideous  forms  it  may  have  at  times  assumed,  we  may  justly 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  13 

regard  as  revelations  of  a  truth,  even  as  St.  Paul  says,  The 
wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodli- 
ness and  unrighteousness  of  men  who  hold  the  truth  in 
unrighteousness.9  We  need  not,  therefore,  in  any  jealous 
or  niggardly  manner  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  operation 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  of  Truth  in  all  nations  and  in  all 
mythologies.  Everywhere  and  always,  from  the  first  dawn 
of  intelligence  on  the  earth,  we  may  believe  that  the  Spirit 
of  Truth  has  been  struggling  to  gain  admittance  into  the 
minds  of  men;  and  as  far  as  the  fact  is  concerned,  it 
matters  not  whether  we  speak  of  His  success  as  the 
natural  achievement  of  human  effort  or  as  the  result  of 
Divine  revelation.  But  unquestionably  the  latter  is  the 
more  correct,  because  otherwise  we  should  be  at  a  loss  to 
account  for  the  various  degrees  of  results,  where  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  the  human  effort  has  been  the 
same.  He  has  favoured  some  more  highly  than  others,  and 
the  effects  are  manifest. 

What  was  historically  the  actual  primeval  condition  of 
mankind  it  will  never  be  possible  for  us  to  determine. 
The  Mosaic  narrative  may  or  may  not  commend  itself  to 
us  as  the  most  probable;  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  if 
we  reject  it  we  can  discover  none  that  shall  be  on  the 
whole  more  satisfactory  or  more  probable.  We  may  ask, 
How  did  the  idea  of  God  or  a  god  first  suggest  itself  to 
the  human  mind  ?  We  may  decide  that  the  ever-present 
vision  of  the  heavens,  or  the  sky,  or  the  light,  or  the  sun,9 

8  Rom.  i.  18. 

9  "  One  of  the  earliest  objects  that  would  strike  and  stir  the  mind  of 
man  and  for  which  a  sign  or  a  name  would  soon  be  wanted  is  surely  the 
sun.  .  .  Think  of  man  only  as  man  .  .  .  with  his  mind  yet  lying  fallow, 
though  full  of  germs— germs  of  which  I  hold  as  strongly  as  ever  no  trace 
has  ever,  no  trace  will  ever  be  discovered  anywhere  but  in  man ;  think  of 
the  Kun  awakening  the  eyes  of  man  from  sleep,  and  his  mind  from 
slumber !    Was  not  the  sunrise  to  him  the  first  wonder,  the  first  beginning 
of  all  reflection,  all  thought,  all  philosophy  ?  was  it  not  to  him  the  first 


14  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

supplied  a  natural  expression,  borrowed  from  a  natural 
object  for  the  idea  when  it  arose.  But  how  did  the  idea 
arise  ?  Was  it  spontaneous  ?  Was  it  original  ?  or  Was  it 
altogether  secondary  or  suggested  ?  This  question  we  have 
really  no  means  of  deciding  one  way  or  the  other.  To 
draw  an  inference  from  the  phenomena  of  language  which 
decides  it,  obliges  us  to  adopt  the  inconceivable  hypothesis 
that  the  earliest  individuals  of  our  race  were  incapable  of 
any  other  ideas  than  those  of  natural  objects ;  that  the 
first  man  was  a  merely  sensuous  being,  who  had  no  lan- 
guage but  for  the  objects  of  sense,  and  no  need  for  any 
other  language.  If  this  really  were  so,  then  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  idea  of  God  could  ever  have  arisen.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  God  was  a  primary  and 
original  idea,  it  must  have  found  an  original  expression  in 
language,  whether  or  not  the  traces  of  such  an  expression 
are  discernible  in  any  of  the  existing  forms  of  language. 
The  analogy  of  the  Aryan  languages  may  indeed  point  us 
to  the  former  inference ;  but  it  is  one  which  may  be  modi- 
fied, if  not  corrected,  by  the  analogy  of  the  Semitic  lan- 
guages. There  the  name  for  God  is  not  derived  from  any 
visible  object,  but  is  itself  expressive  of  an  attribute  that 
may  naturally  have  been  adopted  as  an -original  symbol  for 
an  idea  which  was  original.  To  have  called  God  the  strong 
or  mighty  one,  would  seem  to  have  been  at  least  as  simple 
and  primitive  as  to  have  borrowed  the  idea  of  God  from 
the  sun,  or  the  sky,  or  the  light,  or  to  have  used  the  names 
of  those  objects  for  the  expression  of  that  idea.  It  may 
be  impossible,  on  scientific  principles,  to  decide  whether  or 
not  the  idea  of  God  is  original  to  man,  without  a  very 
much  larger  induction  than  we  at  present  possess ;  but 
these  two  considerations  appear  at  least  to  be  worth  our 

revelation,  the  first  beginning  of  all  trust,  of  all  religion  ?" — Max  Miiller, 
Science  of  Religion,  p.  368.  Cf.  also  Hardwick,  Christ  and  other  Masters, 
part  ii.  p.  12,  n.  2. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  15 

notice;  namely,  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the 
thought  of  God  could  ever  have  been  framed  if  it  was  not 
from  the  first  innate  in  man ;  if  there  had  not  been  that  in 
man's  nature  which  responded  to  the  external  fact  of  God's 
existence.1  We  cannot  imagine  how  it  could  have  dawned 
upon  the  human  conception  which  had  before  been  devoid 
of  it;  and  if  it  had  lain  dormant,  then  we  may  doubt 
whether  mere  earthly  phenomena  would  have  sufficed  to 
arouse  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  accept  the  Mosaic 
record  as  authentic,  and  as  furnishing  as  true  an  idea  of 
the  constitution  and  condition  of  the  first  man  as  we  can 
obtain  elsewhere,  if  not  a  truer  one,  then  this  question  is 
practically  solved  for  us,  for  that  narrative  represents  the 
first  man  as  possessed  of  free  and  uninterrupted  communion 
with  God.2  He  can  have  lacked,  therefore,  neither  the  full 


1  The  analogy  of  human  growth  from  childhood  to  maturity  may  suggest 
the  supposition  that  the  idea  of  God  may  have  existed  from  the  first  in 
man,  but  potentially  rather  than  actually.     There  was  a  capacity  for  the 
conception  of  God,  though  that  conception  existed  only  in  germ,  and  was 
undeveloped,  just  as  there  was  a  capacity  for  all  kinds  of  knowledge, 
though  the  knowledge  was  undiscovered.    And  thus  it  may  be  supposed 
that  natural  phenomena,  operating  on  this  capacity,  developed  the  idea  of 
God,  which  was  not  otherwise  original  or  innate.    But  it  appears  that  the 
thought  of  God  is  as  vivid  in  childhood  as  it  ever  is  afterwards,  and  the 
tendency  of  mental  development  is  to  expel  rather  than  encourage  that 
thought.     The  earliest  races  of  man  are  the  most  religious,  and  the  effect 
of  intellectual  development  and  mental  culture  is,  at  least  in  many  cases, 
rather  unfavourable  to  religious  conceptions  than  otherwise.     It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  analogy  points  rather  to  the  opposite  conclusion, 
that  the  existence  of  the  idea  of  God  in  the  human  mind  can  only  be 
accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  original  and  not  derived,  that 
it  was  innate  in  the  first  man,  and  not  developed  in  him  by  the  teachings 
of  external  nature.     We  cannot  claim  for  human  nature  the  power  of 
inventing  God,  when  the  history  of  experience  shows  us  that  man's 
natural  tendency,  even  under  the  most  favourable  circumstances,  is  to 
forget  Him,  or  even  to  deny  His  existence. 

2  Gen.  ii.  16,  17;  iii.  8,  9,  10.     Comparing  these  passages,  we  are  led 
to  infer  that  the  effect  of  sin  was  to  impair  the  freedom  of  man's  inter- 
course with  God. 


1 6  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

conception  of  the  idea,  nor  the  language  in  which  to  clothe 
it.3 

If,  however,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  idea  of  God 
was  originally  suggested  to  mankind  by  the  teachings  of 
external  nature ;  if  the  spectacle  of  the  brilliant  and  bound- 
less heaven  either  developed  in  man  the  conception  of  a 
god,  or  at  least  furnished  him  with  the  earliest  mode  of 
expressing  the  hitherto  unexpressed  idea ;  can  we  suppose 
that  the  thought  of  sin  owed  its  origin  in  the  same  way 

3  The  opposite  theory  has  found  an  eloquent  exponent  in  Professor 
Max  Muller.  "  The  first  materials  of  language  supply  expressions  for 
such  impressions  only  as  are  received  through  the  senses.  If,  therefore, 
there  was  a  root  meaning  to  burn,  to  be  bright,  to  warm,  such  a  root  might 
supply  a  recognised  name  for  the  sun  and  for  the  sky.  But  let  us  now 
imagine,  as  well  as  we  can,  the  process  which  went  on  in  the  human  mind 
before  the  name  of  sky  could  be  torn  away  from  its  material  object  and 
be  used  as  the  name  of  something  totally  different  from  the  sky.  There 
was  in  the  heart  of  man,  from  the  very  first,  a  feeling  of  incompleteness, 
of  weakness,  of  dependence,  whatever  we  like  to  call  it  in  our  abstract 
language.  We  can  explain  it  as  little  as  we  can  explain  why  the  new-born 
child  feels  the  cravings  of  hunger  and  thirst.  But  it  was  so  from  the  first, 
and  is  so  even  now.  Man  knows  not  whence  he  comes  and  whither  he 
goes.  He  looks  for  a  guide,  for  a  friend;  he  wearies  for  some  one  on 
•whom  he  can  rest ;  he  wants  something  like  a  father  in  heaven.  In 
addition  to  all  the  impressions  which  he  received  from  the  outer  world, 
there  was  in  the  heart  of  man  a  stronger  impulse  from  within — a  sigh,  a 
yearning,  a  call  for  something  that  should  not  come  and  go  like  every- 
thing else,  that  should  be  before,  and  after,  and  for  ever,  that  should  hold 
and  support  everything,  that  should  make  man  feel  at  home  in  this  strange 
world.  Before  this  strange  yearning  could  assume  any  definite  shape  it 
wanted  a  name :  it  could  not  be  fully  grasped  or  clearly  conceived  except 
by  naming  it.  But  where  to  look  for  a  name  ?  No  doubt  the  storehouse 
of  language  was  there,  but  from  every  name  that  was  tried  the  mind  of 
man  shrank  back  because  it  did  not  fit,  because  it  seemed  to  fetter  rather 
than  to  wing  the  thought  that  fluttered  within  and  called  for  light  and 
freedom.  But  when  at  last  a  name,  or  even  many  names  were  tried  and 
chosen,  let  us  see  what  took  place,  as  far  as  the  mind  of  man  was  concerned. 
A  certain  satisfaction,  no  doubt,  was  gained  by  having  a  name  or  several 
names,  however  imperfect ;  but  these  names,  like  all  other  names,  were 
but  signs— poor,  imperfect  signs ;  they  were  predicates,  and  very  partial 
predicates,  of  various  small  portions  only  of  that  vague  and  vast  something 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  17 

to  the  suggestions  of  natural  phenomena  ?  What,  are  the 
natural  phenomena  calculated  to  develop  the  notion  of  sin  ? 
It  is  impossible  to  determine.  But  it  is  likewise  impossible 
to  deny  the  manifold  evidence  of  a  knowledge  of  sin 
which  meets  us  in  the  world.  The  sense  of  sin,  therefore, 
if  it  was  not  prompted  by  the  phenomena  of  nature,  must 
either  have  been  spontaneously  developed,  or  it  must  have 
been  caused  by  the  presentation  from  without  of  some  rule 
or  standard  which  declared  it.  But  if  it  was  spontaneously 

which  slumbered  in  the  mind.  When  the  name  of  the  brilliant  sky  had 
been  chosen,  as  it  has  been  chosen  at  one  time  or  other  by  nearly  every 
nation  upon  earth,  was  sky  the  full  expression  of  that  within  the  mind 
which  wanted  expression  ?  Was  the  mind  satisfied  ?  Had  the  sky  been 
recognised  as  its  god?  Far  from  it.  People  knew  perfectly  well  what 
they  meant  by  the  visible  sky ;  the  first  man  who,  after  looking  everywhere 
for  what  he  wanted,  and  who  at  last  in  sheer  exhaustion  grasped  at  the 
name  of  sky  as  better  than  nothing,  knew  but  too  well  that  his  success  was 
after  all  a  miserable  failure.  The  brilliant  sky  was,  no  doubt,  the  most 
exalted,  it  was  the  only  unchanging  and  infinite  being  that  had  received 
a  name,  and  that  could  lend  its  name  to  that  as  yet  unborn  idea  of  the 
Infinite  which  disquieted  the  human  mind.  But  let  us  only  see  this  clearly, 
that  the  man  who  chose  that  name  did  not  mean,  could  not  have  meant, 
that  the  visible  sky  was  all  he  wanted,  that  the  blue  canopy  above  was 
his  god." — Science  of  Religion,  pp.  269-272.  And  again:  "It  was  by  a 
slow  process  that  the  human  mind  elaborated  the  idea  of  one  absolute  and 
supreme  Godhead ;  and  by  a  still  slower  process  that  the  human  language 
matured  a  word  to  express  that  idea.  A  period  of  growth  was  inevitable, 
and  those  who,  from  a  mere  guess  of  their  own,  do  not  hesitate  to  speak 
authoritatively  of  a  primeval  revelation  which  imparted  to  the  Pagan 
world  the  idea  of  the  Godhead  in  all  its  purity,  forget  that,  however  pure 
and  sublime  and  spiritual  that  revelation  might  have  been,  there  was  no 
language  capable  as  yet  of  expressing  the  high  and  immaterial  conceptions 
of  that  heaven-sent  message." — Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  i.  240. 

More  simple,  and,  on  the  whole,  not  less  probable,  appears  to  be  the 
notion  of  a  first  man  as  yet  unsinning,  who  could  receive  and  therefore 
express  the  commands  of  the  Almighty,  and  give  names  to  all  His 
creatures. 

The  idea  of  God  is  no  less  simple  than  it  is  stupendous  or  profound, 
and  it  was  surely  capable  of  being  apprehended  in  its  simplicity  ages 
before  thought  or  speech  could  frame  or  utter  the  "idea  of  one  absolute 
and  supreme  Godhead." 

C 


1 8  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

developed,  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  it  may  not  from 
the  first  have  been  a  delusion.  There  is  nothing  to  show 
that  it  may  not  be  a  delusion  now.  There  is  nothing  to 
show  that  we  as  sinners  are  individually  guilty  before  God, 
unless  there  has  been  authoritatively  declared  to  us  an 
outward  law  that  we  have  violated.  The  law  may  indeed 
be  written  in  the  heart*  but  it  must  still  be  the  counterpart 
of  a  reality  which  exists  in  God.  Our  consciences  may 
accuse  us;  but  why  do  they  accuse  us,  unless  because  they 
reflect  a  law  external  to  and  independent  of  themselves, 
which  says — Thou  shalt  not,  or  Thou  shalt  ?  What  the 
historical  rise  of  this  consciousness  was  we  know  not,  and 
science  cannot  discover  it  to  us ;  but  our  own  nature  tells 
us  that  there  the  standard  was  long  before  there  was  any 
human  consciousness  to  recognise  its  existence.  It  is 
impossible  that  the  natural  development  of  the  moral 
faculties  can  both  have  invented  the  standard,  and  also 
have  arrived  at  the  knowledge  of  it.  If  they  arrived  at 
the  knowledge  of  it,  there  it  must  have  been  to  be  known; 
they  may  have  perceived  it,  or  rather  it  must  have  revealed 
itself  unto  them ;  but  if  they  invented  it,  then,  being  the 
invention  of  the  moral  faculties,  we  have  no  guarantee  that 
the  standard  is  not  an  incorrect  one,  our  very  perception  of 
it  may  be  an  entire  mistake:  but  then,  of  course,  the 
inference  follows,  that  if  it  is  an  entire  mistake  we  have  no 
right  to  insist  upon  our  faculty  of  determining  what  is 
just  or  true. 

Or  we  may  state  the  matter  thus.  If  God  has  given  us 
a  revelation,  then  He  must  also  have  given  us  adequate 
indications  of  its  truth,  and  He  must  further  have  given  us 
the  power  of  recognising  them  as  adequate  when  given. 
For  if  He  has  not  given  us  this  power,  then  any  indications 
of  a  revelation,  even  if  given,  would  be  useless.  We 
should  be  incapable  of  receiving  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 

4  Rom.  ii.  15. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  19 

He  has  not  given  us  adequate  indications  of  the  truth,  then 
the  exercise  of  our  faculty  of  discrimination  is  impossible. 
There  is  no  higher  sphere  for  its  exercise.     But  we  know 
that  we  do,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  possess  this  faculty  of 
discrimination  in  some  things,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  and 
we  do  habitually  exercise  it,  even  though  at  times  it  may 
mislead  or  fail  us.     Consequently,  the  possession  of  this 
faculty  and  the  power  of  exercising  it  in  all  things  but 
the  highest,  is  reason  for  believing  that  we  have  it  also  in 
the  highest  if  the  opportunity  of  exercising  it  should  occur. 
If,  therefore,  we  possess  a  faculty  of  discriminating  between 
truth  and  falsehood,  then,  on  the  supposition  that  God  has 
given  us  a  revelation  appealing  to  that  faculty,  we  are 
manifestly  competent  to  recognise  it  when  given ;  but  the 
widest  possible  induction  of  facts  leads  us  to  confess  that 
we  do  recognise  a  shalt  and  a  shalt  not,  an  ought  and  an 
ought  not.    This  shalt  and  shalt  not,  this  ought  and  ought 
not,  cannot  be  true,  we  cannot  know  it  to  be  true,  it  must 
be  uncertain  and  unreal,  if  it  is  merely  the  result  of  our 
own  invention  and  fancy,  and  not  God's  revelation.     If, 
therefore,  the  shalt  and  the  shalt  not,  the  ought  and  the 
ought  not,  are  true ;  if  the  difference  between  them  is  a 
reality ;  then  that  which  assures  us  of  this  reality  is  the 
revelation  of  God.     That  is  to  say,  it  is  by  the  revelation 
of  God  that  we  recognise  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong,  truth  and  falsehood.     God  hath  showed  it  unto  us. 
We  are  surely  warranted  then,  in  saying  not  only  that 
the  power  of  recognising  this  difference  is  given  by  God, 
but  that  it  is  one  which  could  not  be  given  through  nature 
or  the  teachings  of  natural  phenomena.    It  was  not  by  the 
suggestions  of  these  phenomena  that  man  rose  to  a  con- 
ception of  morals  or  to  the  perception  of  the  Infinite  and 
the  idea  of  God.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  contemplation 
of  any  natural  objects  could  reveal  the  moral  difference 
between  right  and  wrong,  the  beauty  of  truth  or  the  hate- 


2O  Anticipation  of  tJie  [LECT. 

fulness  of  falsehood.  Nor  can  we  believe  that  the  first 
revelation  of  God  was  derived  from  gazing  on  the  splendour 
and  infinitude  of  the  sky,  or  on  the  vastness  of  the  ocean. 
It  did  not  come  from  nature  or  through  nature,  but  from 
beyond  nature,  from  God  Himself. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious  that  it  is  only  by 
language  derived  from  natural  objects  that  we  can  express 
those  ideas  which  are  beyond  the  sphere  of  nature.  It  is 
only  by  metaphor  and  analogy  that  we  can  speak  of  the 
unseen.  The  eye  of  the  mind  has  no  language,  but  that 
which  is  required  and  has  already  been  used  to  denote  the 
impressions  derived  through  the  eye  of  the  body,  or  through 
the  other  senses.  And  language  thus  employed  has  unques- 
tionably a  tendency  to  react  on  thought,  and  to  debase 
thought;  it  has  a  tendency  also  to  fetter  and  confine  it. 
And  it  is  probable  that  to  this  influence  of  language  upon 
thought  we  may  more  or  less  directly  ascribe  many  of  the 
dreams  of  mythology  in  all  nations;  but  then  we  must 
remember  that  if  the  true  origin  of  mythology  is  to  be 
found  in  language — if,  as  has  been  so  finally  said,  my- 
thology is  the  "dark  shadow  which  language  throws  on 
thought"5 — we  have  to  face  the  question,  Why  is  it  that 
conceptions  originally  so  pure  and  noble,  so  true  and 
beautiful,  suggested  by  the  glorious  phenomena  of  nature, 
should  not  have  been  preserved  in  their  integrity,  or  at 
least  from  time  to  time  have  been  renewed  by  the  same 
inspiring  influences  ?  But,  on  the  contrary,  accepting  this 
as  their  true  origin,  it  cannot  even  be  pretended  that  every 
trace  of  it  did  not  soon  vanish,  like  the  dewdrops  of  the 
dawn  before  the  rising  sun,  never  to  reappear  but  in 

5  "  Mythology  is  inevitable,  it  is  natural,  it  is  an  inherent  necessity  of 
language,  if  we  recognise  in  language  the  outward  form  and  manifestation 
of  thought:  it  is  in  fact  the  dark  shadow  which  language  throws  on 
thought,  and  which  can  never  disappear  till  language  becomes  altogether 
commensurate  with  thought,  which  it  never  will." — Max  Miiller,  Science 
of  Rdigion,  p.  353. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  21 

debasing  and  unworthy  legends.  In  short,  we  can  discover 
no  tendency  in  mythology  to  regenerate  itself.  It  follows 
therefore,  from  the  evidence  afforded  by  this  method  of 
mythological  interpretation,  that  the  natural  tendency  of 
man  is  to  deteriorate.  His  first  conceptions  of  the  Infinite 
were  truer  and  worthier  than  his  latest ;  for,  whether  or  not 
he  originally  identified  the  visible  heavens  with  God,  he 
subsequently  learnt  to  confound  God  with  the  sensuous 
images  language  had  associated  with  the  visible  heavens. 
And  here  was  a  moral  fall.6 

May  we  not  say,  then,  that  the  witness  of  mythology  is 
clear  not  only  to  this  moral  fall  in  itself,  but  also  to  the 
reality  of  that  fallen  condition  of  which  it  was  at  once 
the  proof  and  the  result  ?  Why  is  there  a  tendency  in 
human  nature  to  deteriorate,  an  inability  to  rescue  and 
restore  itself,  as  the  development  of  mythology  and  as 
practical  experience  alike  testify,  unless  because  of  an 

"  There  are  two  distinct  tendencies  to  be  observed  in  the  growth  of 
ancient  religion.  There  is,  on  the  one  side,  the  struggle  of  the  mind 
against  the  material  character  of  language,  a  constant  attempt  to  strip 
-words  of  their  coarse  covering,  and  fit  them,  by  main  force,  for  the 
purposes  of  abstract  thought.  But  there  is,  on  the  other  side,  a  constant 
relapse  from  the  spiritual  into  the  material,  and,  strange  to  say,  a  predi- 
lection for  the  material  sense  instead  of  the  spiritual.  This  action  and 
reaction  has  been  going  on  in  the  language  of  religion  from  the  earliest 
times,  and  is  at  work  even  now." — Max  Muller,  Science  of  Religion,  p.  268. 
And  again,  "  The  first  step  downwards  would  be  to  look  upon  the  sky 
as  the  abode  of  that  Being  which  was  called  by  the  same  name ;  the  next 
step  would  be  to  forget  altogether  what  was  behind  the  name,  and  to 
implore  the  sky,  the  visible  canopy  above  our  heads,  to  send  rain,  to 
protect  the  fields,  the  cattle,  and  the  corn,  to  give  to  man  his  daily  bread. 
Nay,  very  soon  those  who  warned  the  world  that  it  was  not  the  visible 
sky  that  was  meant,  but  that  what  was  meant  was  something  high  above, 
deep  below,  far  away  from  the  blue  firmament,  would  be  looked  upon 
either  as  dreamers  whom  no  one  could  understand,  or  as  unbelievers  who 
despised  the  sky,  the  great  benefactor  of  the  world.  Lastly,  many  things 
that  were  true  of  the  visible  sky  would  be  told  of  its  divine  namesake,  and 
legends  would  spring  up,  destroying  every  trace  of  the  deity  that  once 
was  hidden  beneath  that  ambiguous  name." — Ibid,  p.  273. 


22  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

original  twist  or  wrench  in  our  nature  from  the  effects  of 
which  we  cannot  recover  ourselves  ?  All  things  bear 
witness  to  this  fact,  wherever  we  turn.  All  societies,  re- 
ligions, institutions,  experience  the  effects  and  bear  witness 
to  the  truth  of  it.  Is  it  not  as  useless  to  deny  as  it  is 
impossible  to  explain  it  ?  We  may  find  it  difficult  to  say 
what  we  mean  by  the  Fall,  and  may  not  care  too  narrowly 
to  define;  but  the  evidence  of  facts  for  the  reality  and 
truth  of  a  Fall  is  irresistible.  And  if  the  natural  growth 
of  mythology  is  itself  a  witness  to  this  tendency  to  decline, 
how  much  more  is  the  mythology  full  grown !  Can  any- 
thing afford  more  conclusive  evidence  of  the  depravity  of 
the  human  heart  than  the  ultimate  form  assumed  by  many 
of  the  legends  of  Greece,  to  say  nothing  of  those  of  India  ? 
Is  it  possible  to  excuse  or  to  condone  the  practices  which 
were  the  immediate  outcome  of  the  cultus  associated  with 
those  legends,  and  the  deities  to  whom  they  referred  ?  We 
may  try  to  believe  that  their  origin  was  more  innocent 
than  their  result,  but  there  can  be  no  mistake  about  their 
result.  The  Pauline  account  of  the  heathen  wTorld  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Eomans  is  too  vivid  not  to  be  true,  and  is 
too  true  to  be  disputed.  And  that  was  the  actual  outcome 
of  mythology,  for  of  religion  properly  speaking  there  was 
none. 

And  can  we  believe  that  this  was  the  method  adopted 
by  God  for  developing  the  growth  of  Christianity  ?  Was 
Christianity  the  natural  flower  and  fruit  of  such  a  seed. 
and  such  a  plant  as  this  ?  Is  Christianity  what  this  de- 
veloped into?  Because,  if  we  are  to  eliminate  all  but 
purely  natural  causes,  we  shall  be  constrained  to  confess 
that  the  Gospel  as  it  appeared  at  first  was  the  direct 
outcome,  the  spontaneous  production,  of  germs  and  forces 
such  as  these.  The  hideous  and  the  impure  originated  the 
lovely  and  the  pure.  The  unholy  generated  the  holy.  If 
mythology  was  but  the  progressive  development  of  religious 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  23 

ideas  spontaneously  conceived  in  man,  it  must  have  been  a 
direct  link  in  that  chain  of  which  the  pure  Gospel  of  Christ 
was  the  ultimate  result.  And  when  we  bear  in  mind  the 
yet  grosser  and  more  openly  revolting  interpretation,  which 
by  some  has  been  unhesitatingly  assigned  to  universal 
mythology,  construing  its  ever- varying  development  in  the 
east  and  the  west  and  the  north  and  the  south  as  but  the 
unvarying  repetition  of  the  same  ever-recurrent  foul  idea,7 
one  shudders  to  think  of  the  awful  blasphemy  that  is 
involved  in  any  position  which  implies  or  seems  to  imply 
that  the  very  life-blood  of  Christianity  has  been  deduced 
through  channels  such  as  these,  and  owes  its  natural  origin 
to  the  same  ultimate  causes.  We  may  indeed  say  this  may 
be  science  so  called,  but  it  cannot  be  truth.  Or  rather,  we 
may  boldly  say,  this  manifestly  is  not  true ;  and  therefore 
it  cannot  be  science,  for  science  is  the  handmaid  of  truth 
and  leads  to  truth. 

No !  What  God  has  taught  us  through  the  patent  and 
only  too  obvious  facts  of  the  heathen  world  and  the  ultimate 
phases  of  mythology,  is  sufficiently  clear.  He  has  shown 
us  written  thereon  in  unmistakable  characters  the  actual 
condition  of  the  human  heart,  its  naked  deformity,  its 
real  depravity,  its  natural  tendency,  when  left  to  itself. 
He  has  shown  us  the  place  there  was  in  the  world  of  our 
humanity  for  a  Eedeemer,  the  deep  want  of  a  redemption, 
the  hopelessness  and  the  impossibility  of  our  nature,  left 
simply  to  its  own  spontaneous  efforts,  being  competent  to 
regenerate  itself.  He  has  shown  us  that  all  this  was,  over 
and  over  again,  felt  and  witnessed  to  by  that  nature  itself. 
He  has  shown  us  that  even  the  greatest  teachers  in  the 
schools  of  Athens  could  not  shake  themselves  free  from 

7  See  passim,  e.g.  Cox,  Aryan  Nations.  This  writer  does  not  hesitate  to 
refer  to  the  same  hideous  origin,  and  invest  with  the  same  foul  significance, 
the  narratives  in  Gen.  iii.  and  Num.  xxi.  7,  8,  9.  Vol.  ii.  116,  n.  2;  114, 
etc. 


24  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

the  trammels  of  a  corrupt  nature,  that  they  imperfectly 
discerned  the  depth  of  the  corruption,  and  thereby  proved 
themselves  the  subjects  of  it.  He  has  thus  shown  us  that 
the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  and  could  not  by 
searching  find  Him  out. 

The  witness,  then,  of  the  heathen  world  is  to  the  exist- 
ence of  sin  with  which  it  was  unable  to  cope,  and  to  which 
it  was  imperfectly  alive ;  to  the  consciousness  of  a  want 
which  it  was  unable  to  supply ;  to  the  desire  for  light  it 
was  unable  to  obtain.  Mankind  yearned  for  that  which  it 
could  not  find,  which  in  itself  it  did  not  possess.  But  every 
want,  if  a  real  one,  argues  the  existence  of  that  which  will 
supply  it.  Provision  is  made  in  nature  for  the  supply  of 
every  true  and  natural  want,  as  is  shown  by  the  adaptation 
of  one  thing  to  another.  We  should  infer,  therefore,  the 
abstract  existence  of  that  which  would  meet  this  want. 
And  thus  the  universal  testimony  of  the  heathen  world  to 
the  consciousness  of  the  want  becomes  itself  an  unconscious 
anticipation  of  that  which  would  supply  it.  The  want  of 
a  redemption  becomes  the  unconscious  anticipation  of  a 
redeemer,  and  may  be  appealed  to  as  such.  The  character 
and  conditions  of  the  want  show  the  character  and  con- 
ditions he  would  be  required  to  fulfil  who  should  supply  it. 
And  they  furnish,  so  far,  a  standard  by  which  his  actual 
character  may  be  measured.  He  may  be  rightly  estimated 
by  his  power  of  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  humanity. 

But  what  is  the  evidence  which  is  afforded  us  by  the 
study  of  mythology  with  reference  to  the  probable  origin 
of  Christianity  ?  If  we  take  the  more  debased  inter- 
pretation of  it,  we  find  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  a 
pure  and  purifying  influence  such  as  Christianity  could 
have  been  evolved  by  a  natural  process  from  mythology. 
It  could  not  have  sprung  from  it,  or  have  had  the  same 
origin  with  it.  There  must  have  been  an  entirely  inde- 
pendent external  and  extra-natural  agency  at  work  to 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  25 

produce  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose  that  the 
earliest  ideas  of  religion  were  spontaneously  developed 
through  the  influence  of  nature,  then  those  ideas  must 
have  grown  up  and  arrived  at  maturity  in  the  same  way ; 
and  unless  we  admit  at  some  point  or  other  the  direct 
operation  of  a  higher,  independent  and  external  influence, 
Christianity  itself  can  have  been  but  the  ultimate  result, 
the  highest  development,  of  these  primary,  self-evolved 
ideas.  But  we  have  seen  that  the  actual  tendency  of  the 
ideas  has  been  to  decline  and  to  degenerate,  not  to  become 
purer  and  more  elevated ;  consequently  here  again  we  are 
met  by  a  strong  presumption  that  the  actual  origin  of 
Christianity  must  be  due  to  other  causes  than  those  sug- 
gested. That  is  to  say,  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  account 
for  the  higher  development  of  the  religious  idea,  without 
the  admission  of  another  influence  out  of,  above,  and 
beyond  nature,  which  we  can  only  term  the  direct  revela- 
tion of  God. 

It  matters  not  whether  we  can  understand  or  define  the 
actual  operation  of  such  an  influence:  if  various  con- 
siderations appear  to  converge  towards  and  point  to  it, 
while  the  contrary  supposition  appears  to  be  precluded 
absolutely,  then  the  natural  inference  surely  is  that,  in 
spite  of  ourselves,  we  must  recognise  its  operation,  account 
lor  it  or  understand  it  as  we  may. 

If,  therefore,  the  scientific  investigation  of  the  origin  of 
religion  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  a  simply 
natural  growth,  developed  naturally  by  the  spontaneous 
evolution  of  religious  germs  inherent  in  man,  we  have  a 
right  to  test  this  conclusion  by  the  application  of  certain 
facts  which  are  or  are  not  consistent  with  it.  We  have  seen 
that  it  is  not  possible  to  regard  them  as  consistent  with  it, 
and  therefore  the  inference  clearly  is  that  the  proposed 
scientific  theory  fails  to  account  for  that  which  it  professes 
to  explain.  There  are  certain  manifest  facts  which  are  not 


26  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

comprehended  in  its  induction,  and  which  are  actually 
fatal  to  it. 

If,  again,  we  cannot  in  any  real  sense  know  what  is  right 
and  true  without  a  virtual  revelation  to  the  conscience  of 
the  true  and  the  right  which  consists  in  such  knowledge, 
then  it  is  clear  that  a  path  is  at  once  opened  out  for  us  to 
conceive  of  other  methods  of  revelation  no  less  real,  which 
shall  approve  themselves,  not  so  much  by  the  manner  of 
their  communication  as  by  the  subject-matter  of  that  which 
they  reveal.  Thus,  for  example,  given  the  person  of  Christ 
as  an  actual  revelation  from  God,  then  those  who  beheld 
Him  were  recipients  of  that  revelation  whether  they 
believed  in  Him  or  not:  the  person  whom  they  beheld 
became  an  object  to  their  consciousness  which  admitted  of 
no  dispute.  The  fact  of  the  revelation,  however,  was 
antecedent  to  their  knowledge  of  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  the  case  of  those  who  saw  in  Christ  the  manifestation  of 
the  Father,  there  was  a  yet  further  revelation,  which  was 
made  known  by  other  agencies  that  partly  were  and  partly 
were  not  dependent  on  the  testimony  of  their  bodily  senses  ; 
but  here  also  the  true  revelation  consisted  not  in  the  method 
of  its  communication,  but  in  the  intrinsic  glory  of  the  object 
revealed,  of  which,  whether  through  the  senses  or  otherwise, 
they  had  become  conscious.  There  had  been  a  true  reve- 
lation to  the  blind  man  at  Jericho  before  with  opened  eyes 
he  beheld  the  person  of  the  Son  of  man,  but  he  could  not 
have  known  of  this  revelation  except  so  far  as  it  was 
revealed  to  him,  and  the  proof  of  the  revelation  consisted 
in  the  object  revealed.  It  follows  then,  that,  just  as  there 
could  be  no  knowledge  of  the  person  of  Christ  but  for  the 
fact  of  His  manifestation  to  the  eyes  of  men,  so  there  could 
be  no  knowledge  of  His  Divine  character  but  for  the  fact 
of  its  revelation  to  the  spirits  of  men.  The  knowledge  is 
no  proof  of  the  revelation,  but  without  the  revelation  there 
can  be  no  knowledge  properly  so-called.  We  must  have  a 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  27 

Divine  revelation  before  we  can  really  know  the  Divine ; 
without  it  we  must  abide  in  darkness.  As,  however,  the 
moral  revelation  of  right  and  wrong  is  not  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  error,  so  neither  is  the 
spiritual  revelation  independent  of  the  will.  There  ever 
have  been,  there  always  will  be,  consciences  it  is  unable  to 
touch. 

The  all-important  questions,  of  course,  arise,  How  can 
such  a  Divine  revelation  be  brought  home  to  the  minds  of 
men  ?  and  How  can  we  recognise  it  when  presented  to  us  ? 
How  shall  we  know  it  when  we  see  it,  and  be  sure  that  we 
are  not  deceived  ?  In  answer  to  these  questions  we  may 
say  that  the  mind  is  prepared  for  the  reception  of  a 
professedly  Divine  revelation  by  the  combined  weight  of 
many  convergent  indications  and  the  accumulated  force  of 
many  independent  testimonies.  It  is  notorious  that  several 
religions  appeal  to  a  professedly  Divine  revelation.  The 
Vedas  of  the  Brahmans,  the  Zend-Avesta  of  the  Parsis, 
the  Tripi^aka  of  the  Buddhists,  the  Kuran  of  the  Muham- 
madans,  all  claim  to  be  regarded,  and  are  regarded  by  their 
respective  followers,  as  divine.  Are  we  called  upon  to 
admit  the  claim  ?  Undoubtedly  not.  Every  one  of  these 
collections  of  sacred  writings  rests  upon  a  totally  different 
basis  from  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
No  man  in  his  senses  can  compare  them  and  not  perceive 
their  essential  and  intrinsic  difference.  We  have  no  desire 
to  exalt  our  own  religion  at  the  expense  of  others,  or  to 
depreciate  others  that  our  own  may  be  exalted;  but  our 
allegiance  to  our  own  religion,  if  we  believe  in  it,  forbids 
us  for  one  moment  to  place  it  on  the  same  level  with  others, 
as  it  prevents  us  from  being  blind  to  its  generic  difference 
and  its  immeasurable  superiority.8 

b  "  Those  who  would  use  a  comparative  study  of  religions  as  a  means 
for  debasing  Christianity  by  exalting  the  other  religions  of  mankind,  are 
to  my  mind  as  dangerous  allies  as  those  who  think  it  necessary  to  debase 


28  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

If  it  could  be  proved  that  this  superiority  was  merely  a 
matter  of  opinion  and  of  taste,  and  not  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
would,  of  course,  be  worth  nothing,  and  the  sooner  we 
allowed  ourselves  to  be  so  persuaded  the  better  it  would  be. 
But,  forasmuch  as  the  difference  is  demonstrably  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  is  useless  to  ignore  it,  and  absurd  to  regard  it  as 
though  it  were  not.  What,  in  the  eyes  of  the  most  impartial 
observer,  are  the  claims  of  the  Kuran  in  comparison  with 
those  of  the  New  Testament  or  the  Old  ?  There  is  and  can 
be  no  comparison.  It  is  not  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the 
Kuran,  or  that  the  truth  therein  is  not  derived  from  the 
one  fountain  of  truth;  but  the  evidence  of  revelation  in 
it,  properly  so  called,  is  simply  nil.  Or  take  again  the 
Veda,  as  the  knowledge  of  it  has  of  late  years  been  opened 
out  to  us  by  the  unceasing  and  indefatigable  labours  of  an 
eminent  scholar  of  this  place ;  where  can  we  find  in  the 

all  other  religions  in  order  to  exalt  Christianity.  Science  wants  no 
partisans.  I  make  no  secret  that  true  Christianity,  I  mean  the  religion  of 
Christ,  seems  to  me  to  become  more  and  more  exalted  the  more  we  know, 
and  the  more  we  appreciate  the  treasures  of  truth  hidden  in  the  despised 
religions  of  the  world.  But  no  one  can  honestly  arrive  at  that  conviction, 
unless  he  uses  honestly  the  same  measure  for  all  religions.  It  would  be 
fatal  for  any  religion  to  claim  an  exceptional  treatment,  most  of  all  for 
Christianity.  Christianity  enjoyed  no  privileges  and  claimed  no  immu- 
nities when  it  boldly  confronted  and  confounded  the  most  ancient  and  the 
most  powerful  religions  of  the  world.  Even  at  present  it  craves  no  mercy, 
and  it  receives  no  mercy  from  those  whom  our  missionaries  have  to  meet 
face  to  face  in  every  part  of  the  world.  Unless  our  religion  has  ceased  to 
be  what  it  was,  its  defenders  should  not  shrink  from  this  new  trial  of 
strength,  but  should  encourage  rather  than  depreciate  the  study  of 
comparative  theology." — Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Religion,  p.  37.  All  this 
is  perfectly  true  when  considering  the  claims  of  Christianity  with  a  view 
to  forming  a  decision ;  but  when  those  claims  have  been  considered,  then, 
if  they  have  not  been  rejected,  there  are  other  words  which  come  into 
operation ;  namely,  "  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me."  It  is  strange, 
but  no  less  true  than  strange,  that  a  position  of  absolute  neutrality  with 
regard  to  Christ,  and  therefore  with  regard  to  the  religion  of  Christ,  is 
one  that  always  was,  and  always  will  be,  found  impossible  to  be  long 
maintamtd. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations. 

Veda,  with  all  its  beauty  and  with  all  its  truth,  with  its 
vast  antiquity  and  the  glorious  visions  it  has  unfolded  of 
the  earliest  dawn  of  human  society  and  life — where  shall 
we  find  in  it  the  same  distinctive  evidence  of  revelation  in 
the  same  conscious  hold  on  the  Divine  that  we  cannot  bui 
acknowledge,  even  if  we  do  not  feel  it,  in  the  Psalms  of 
David  and  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  ? 

It  is  not  from  narrowness,  or  bigotry,  or  partiality,  or 
want  of  sympathy  with  other  religions  than  our  own  that 
we  say  this,  but  because  the  songs  of  a  David  or  the  bur- 
dens of  an  Isaiah  have  palpable  evidences  of  a  knowledge 
of  God  and  of  a  mission  from  God  that  are  not  to  be  found 
elsewhere.  If  a  special  revelation  has  anywhere  been 
vouchsafed,  and  the  record  of  it  exists,  and  if  we  have 
faculties  capable  of  perceiving  it  when  given,  then  there 
can  be  no  question  to  which  of  these  quarters  we  must 
turn  to  find  it.  We  cannot  say  it  is  to  be  discovered 
equally  in  all.  We  may  say  it  is  to  be  found  pre-eminently 
here,  for  instance,  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  that  to  such  an  extent  that  the  claim  of  the  others  to 
anything  like  a  special  or  direct  revelation  is  not  for  a 
moment  to  be  entertained  in  comparison  with  theirs.  Their 
witness  is  within. 

And  then,  side  by  side  with  these  internal  marks,  we 
have  the  sure  and  incorruptible  evidence  of  history,  which 
step  by  step  can  be  traced  backwards  in  its  broader  and 
more  general  aspects,  till  it  leaves  us  in  the  dilemma  of 
reading  the  history  in  the  light  of  the  prophets,  and  the 
prophets  in  the  light  of  the  history,  or  else  of  understanding 
neither.  We  have  the  stream  of  history  flowing  on  con- 
temporaneously with  the  stream  of  literature,  and  the 
phenomena  presented  by  each  constrain  us  to  confess  that 
they  are  both  unique.  Is  this  the  result  of  accident  ?  is  it 
the  effect  of  collusion,  of  preconcerted  arrangement  ?  or 
does  it  serve  more  naturally  to  suggest  the  gradual  working 


3O  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

out  of  a  Divine  plan,  of  which  there  is  no  second  instance 
in  the  annals  of  the  world  ?  Doubtless  this,  with  all  that 
it  demands,  is  after  all  the  only  reasonable  solution  of  the 
problem.  And  the  broad  and  solid  results  that  we  are  able 
to  arrive  at  are  of  a  nature  to  be  independent  of  the  more 
fragmentary  and  partial  criticisms  of  a  philosophy  that 
refuses  to  be  bound  by  any  critical  canons;  while  they 
present  a  substantial  basis  of  fact  that  must  serve  to 
correct  and  modify  conclusions  that  are  derived  from  the 
assumption  of  a  uniform  and  dull  monotony  in  the  history 
and  literature  of  the  world  which  has  never  been  broken. 
Here  are  the  very  facts  which  must  serve  to  check  the 
over-hasty  generalisation.  They  must  either  be  left  out, 
or  they  must  be  tortured  and  perverted  before  they  will 
fit  in. 

Thus  we  find,  at  any  rate,  that  there  is  sufficient  to  arrest 
our  attention  in  considering,  for  example,  the  claims  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  be  regarded  as  a  special  Divine  revelation 
in  a  sense  in  which  neither  the  Yedas  nor  the  Kuran  can 
pretend  to  be.  Treating  it  with  the  strictest  impartiality, 
as  we  naturally  should  treat  any  other  book,  we  neverthe- 
less find  it  to  be  marked  with  exceptional  features  which 
are  very  peculiar.  As  a  matter  of  historic  fact,  it  has 
formed  the  basis  for  another  set  of  writings  very  different 
from  its  own  in  style  and  character,  and  that  in  a  way  that 
is  altogether  without  parallel.  It  was  the  literary  progenitor 
of  the  New  Testament ;  and  but  for  the  Old  Testament  as 
a  foundation  the  New  could  never  have  been  written.  And 
yet  the  relation  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old  is  not 
that  of  a  commentary,  but  of  an  independent,  original,  and 
in  some  sense  antagonistic  work.  And  these  statements 
remain  equally  true,  when  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
are  regarded  merely  as  human  productions,  as  the  natural 
growth  of  literature  in  times  and  circumstances  very  diverse. 
The  Old  Testament  is  a  complete  national  literature :  the 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  31 

New  Testament  cannot  in  any  way  be  regarded  as  a 
national  literature,  though  produced  for  the  most  part  by 
writers  of  the  same  nation  as  the  Old,  after  an  interval  of 
nearly  live  centuries.  The  chief  characteristic  of  the  New 
Testament  is  that  it  professes  to  record  the  fulfilment  and 
realisation  of  the  hopes  and  aspirations  created  by  the 
Old,  and  to  describe  the  results  consequent  thereupon. 
The  historic  relation,  therefore,  of  cause  and  effect  is  that 
which  best  expresses  the  relation  subsisting  between  these 
two  collections  of  writings,  and  it  is  one  which  it  is 
impossible  to  deny.  There  may  have  been  other  causes 
combining  to  bring  about  the  production  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  it  is  impossible  to  eliminate  altogether  the 
influence  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  principal  and  pre- 
ponderating cause. 

In  the  New  Testament,  however,  we  find  the  conception 
of  the  Christ  fully  developed,  and  there,  if  anywhere,  we 
are  to  discover  its  ultimate  form.  It  received  no  appreciable 
development  after  the  latest  of  the  New  Testament  books 
was  written,  or,  at  least,  none  with  which  we  need  concern 
ourselves.  And  yet  this  conception  of  the  Christ  as  there 
exhibited,  whether  in  historical  narrative  or  in  epistolary 
correspondence,  is  one  that  could  not  have  arisen  without 
adequate  historical  preparation  and  development.  Even 
the  fourfold  life  of  Jesus,  whom  its  several  authors  agree 
in  identifying  with  the  Christ,  could  not,  if  regarded  merely 
as  a  literary  production,  have  been  written,  if  there  had 
not  existed  previously  certain  ideas  and  notions  which 
served  as  a  nucleus  for  the  crystallisation  of  the  thought. 
It  is  hopeless  to  discover  what  these  ideas  and  notions 
were,  if  we  do  not  seek  for  them  in  the  Old  Testament. 
There  unquestionably  the  germ  of  them  existed,  from 
thence  they  sprang,  and  by  this  they  were  nurtured  and 
developed.  And  the  process  of  their  growth  is  capable  of 
being  historically  traced.  For  example,  in  the  book  of 


32  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

Daniel,  no  matter  when  it  was  written,  we  find  a  usage 
of  the  word  Messiah  which  is  unique  in  the  Old  Testament.9 
Even  allowing,  which  I  do  not  allow,  that  this  book  was 
written  as  late  as  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  it  still 
affords  undeniable  testimony  to  the  existence  at  that  time 
of  the  conception  of  a  person,  more  or  less  distinct,  who 
could  be  spoken  of  as  Messiah,  the  word  being  used  like  a 
proper  name  without  the  definite  article.  And  whether 
this  was  in  the  second  or  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  it  repre- 
sents a  development  of  thought,  an  advancement  in  the 
direction  of  form  and  substance,  inasmuch  as  not  till  then 
is  such  an  expression  found.  But  on  every  ground  there 
must  have  been  some  apparent  reason  for  the  conception 
expressed.  There  must  have  been  that  already  existing 
which  favoured  the  notion,  and  sufficed  to  create  or  to 
encourage  it.  Perhaps  it  may  not  be  easy  to  determine 
what  this  was,  but  of  its  existence  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
To  trace,  then,  the  historic  development  of  what  we  may 
term  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ  will  be  the  object  of  the 
following  lectures :  to  follow  it  out  in  the  three  departments 
of  history,  poetry,  and  prophecy,  till  we  arrive  at  the  period 
when  He  who  was  proclaimed  as  the  Christ  appeared. 
The  proposition  with  which  we  start  is  this,  that  there  must 
have  been  a  sufficient  basis  in  the  Old  Testament  for  the 
New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Christ  to  be  reared  upon. 
That  doctrine  could  not  have  rested  upon  nothing.  It 
appealed  to  a  conception  it  already  found  in  existence. 
That  conception  was  exclusively  owing  to  the  influence 
exerted  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  upon  the 
popular  mind,  or  else  to  spontaneous  ideas  existing  in  the 
national  mind,  of  which  the  only  explanation  and  record 
must  be  sought  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 
As  whatever  traces  there  are  of  a  similar  conception  in 
other  nations  are  apparently  derived  from  one  and  the  same 

9  Cf.  2  Sam.  i.  21,  perhaps  the  nearest  approach  to  it. 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  33 

source,  we  shall  be  able  to  compare  the  origin  of  this 
conception  with  the  supposed  origin  of  mythological  con- 
ceptions, and  to  mark  the  contrast  between  them.  That 
any  such  idea  was  original  with  the  Jewish  nation,  and 
peculiar  to  that  people,  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt. 
It  is  sufficiently  clear  that  they  laid  claim  to  the  possession 
of  it,  and  there  is  no  other  nation  that  can  dispute  its 
possession  with  them.  They  are  historically  distinct  from 
all  other  nations  in  this  respect.  What  is  the  natural 
explanation  of  this  fact,  or  does  it  admit  of  any  explanation 
that  is  simply  natural  ? 

If  then,  by  pursuing  a  strictly  historical  method,  we  are 
able  to  trace  the  growth  of  this  idea  step  by  step,  investi- 
gating and  examining  the  several  indications  of  its  existence, 
and  the  various  circumstances  that  may  have  led  to  its 
development — the  influence  of  natural  causes,  the  pressure 
of  external  events,  the  example  of  surrounding  nations 
and  the  like — we  shall  be  in  a  better  position  to  decide 
upon  these  questions.  We  shall  then  be  able  to  determine 
what  the  evidence  is  for  the  first  origin  of  this  idea,  whether 
in  its  rise  and  development  it  can  be  placed  in  the  category 
of  mythological  conceptions  that  can  be  traced  to  the  double 
meanings  of  words,  whether  there  is  any  natural  process 
capable  of  leading  up  to  the  first  thought,  or  whether  we 
must  not  consider  it  as  a  communication  imparted  to  our 
humanity  rather  than  originated  by  it — a  communication, 
however,  of  which  the  importance  and  the  value  consists 
quite  as  much  in  its  intrinsic  nature  as  in  the  method 
employed  for  conveying  it,  and  of  which  the  character  and 
the  tendency  are  the  highest  evidence  of  its  origin. 

If  again  we  can  find  in  mythology  no  clear  indications 
of  the  hope  of  a  Eedeemer,  which  as  a  matter  of  fact  are 
found  in  the  history  and  literature  of  the  Jews,  and  if  in 
philosophy  also,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a  protest  against 
mythology,  there  is  no  higher  indication  than  that  afforded 

D 


34  Anticipation  of  the  [LECT. 

by  a  celebrated  passage  in  the  "  Kepublic,"  we  may  surely 
arrive  at  the  not  unreasonable  conclusion  that  these  cha- 
racteristics of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  being  as  they  are 
unique,  do  constitute  the  very  highest  evidence  of  the 
special  revelation  which  they  are  alleged  to  contain.  Else- 
where humanity  did  not  cherish  this  hope,  here  it  wras 
cherished ;  this  is  the  way  in  which  it  was  cherished ;  and 
this  is  the  reason  why  it  was  cherished.  The  hope  professed 
to  be  based  upon  a  promise :  a  promise  implies  a  person 
promising.  In  this  case  a  person  promising  implies  an 
unusual  and  unique  operation  on  the  part  of  God.  The 
evidence  of  the  work  done  points  conclusively  to  the  doer 
of  it.  We  are  led  up  on  all  hands  to  the  confines  of 
the  supernatural  and  the  Divine.  Mythology  could  give 
no  promise;  philosophy  could  give  no  promise,  human 
nature  itself  could  not  have  originated  any  promise ;  but 
mythology,  philosophy,  and  human  nature,  alike  bore  wit- 
ness to  the  defect  which  the  promise  undertook  to  supply. 
Thus  far  the  unaided  energies  of  man  could  go,  but  no 
farther.  They  cried  aloud  unto  heaven,  but  they  could  give 
no  answer ;  the  only  answer  was  the  echo  of  their  cry. 

A  period,  however,  occurred  in  human  history  when  a 
distinct  answer  was  given.  A  note  of  preparation  for  that 
answer  was  struck  by  the  son  of  Zacharias  in  the  wilder- 
ness, when  he  awoke  once  more  the  voice  of  the  ancient 
prophets.  And  then  the  answer  itself  came  in  the  preaching 
and  the  mission  of  Jesus.  He  claimed  to  be  the  Christ  of 
whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  did  write.  That 
He  advanced  this  claim  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  doubt. 
That  His  moral  character  must  stand  or  fall  according  as 
His  claim  was  or  was  not  just,  is  equally  certain.  His 
moral  and  personal  character  were  not  the  creation  of  the 
Evangelists.  They  did  not  invent  their  Jesus,  nor  invent 
for  Him  His  character  of  the  Christ.  And  yet  His  character 
as  depicted  by  them  stands  alone  in  the  history  and  the 


i.]  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  35 

literature  of  the  world.  As  an  invention,  however,  it  would 
have  been  little  less  wonderful  than  as  a  history ;  for  there 
were  no  materials  out  of  which  to  construct  it,  and  they 
were  not  the  men  to  use  them  if  there  had  been. 

We  have  then  a  promise,  and  a  person,  and  a  claim — a 
person  claiming  to  fulfil  the  promise.  We  are  all  of  us 
competent  to  decide  how  far  the  promise  was  fulfilled  in 
Him,  how  far  He  failed  to  realise  it.  Nor  is  it  very  prob- 
able that  we  shall  reject  Him  on  the  ground  that  He  failed 
to  realise  the  promise.  If  we  reject  Him  at  all,  it  will  be 
on  other  grounds  than  these.  And  then,  in  that  case,  we 
shall  have  to  face  this  fact,  that  the  most  silent  and  the 
most  mighty  revolution  the  world  has  ever  known  was 
immediately  connected  with  the  belief  that  the  ancient 
promise  was  fulfilled  in  Him,  so  that  the  verdict  of  history 
will  be  opposed  to  the  estimate  we  have  formed  of  Jesus. 

The  circumstances,  therefore,  connected  with  the  historic 
rise  of  a  particular  religion,  which  are  of  such  a  nature  as 
to  be  independent  of  the  perfectly  free  discussion  of  various 
points  relating  thereto,  and  of  the  particular  resolution  that 
may  await  the  questions  involved,  are  a  valid  presumptive 
proof  that  this  religion  was  intrinsically  and  in  its  origin 
different  from  all  others,  inasmuch  as  of  no  other  religion 
can  the  same  characteristics  be  predicated.  The  indications, 
are  many  and  various :  they  are  independent,  cumulative,, 
and  confirmatory.  They  point  us  from  many  quarters  ta 
one  and  the  same  conclusion.  If  the  several  tales  of 
several  mythologies  appear  to  be  all  resolvable  into  one- 
original  idea,  which  is  that  of  the  ever-recurrent  decay  and 
revival  of  nature,  it  is  not  so  here.  It  is  simply  impossible, 
for  example,  that  the  record  of  the  Jewish  history,  interpret 
it  as  we  may,  and  reduce  it  to  any  extent  we  please,  can  be 
resolved  into  the  mere  repetition  of  the  same  idea.  It 
stands  out  in  marked  contrast  with  every  mythology,  and 
furnishes  the  broad  and  solid  basis  in  life  and  fact  for  the 


3 6  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  [LECT.  i. 

possible  existence  of  other  living  facts,  to  which  there  is 
palpable  evidence  in  literature  and  in  history,  and  which 
but  for  such  a  basis  could  themselves  have  had  no  existence. 
And  thus  the  historic  and  literary  development  of  the 
doctrine  and  religion  of  the  Christ,  first  as  it  grew  and 
gathered  form  before  He  came,  and  secondly  as  it  was 
developed  in  the  early  Christian  literature,  will  be  the 
strongest  evidence  of  its  origin ;  and  we  shall  find  that  as 
we  cannot  believe  in  Jesus  without  believing  in  the  Christ, 
and  cannot  believe  in  the  Christ  without  believing  in  Jesus, 
so  neither  can  we  disbelieve  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  without 
rejecting  an  accumulation  of  evidence  which  may  justly  be 
regarded  as  the  record  that  God  gave  of  His  Son. 


LECTURE   II. 

THE   CHRIST  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY. 


$)te  ®runt>ung  be8  iitbtfc$en  @taat8  burc$  2ftofe§  id  cine  ber  benfnnirbigflen  33egebcn« 
$etten,  twelve  bie  ®efc$ic$te  aufbewa^rt  $at,  nnctyttg  burc$  bte  ©tarfe  be§  2>erflanbe3, 
tt>oburc$  $e  in3  2Berf  geridbjet  »orben,  totdjttger  noc^  butc1^  t^ire  gotgen  auf  bie  SBelt,  bte 
nod()  St«  auf  btefen  5lugen6Iirf  fortbauern.  Stoet  Sicltgionen,  tvel^e  ben  gro^ten  £fjctl  ber 
bemo^nten  Grrbe  be^errfd^en,  ba8  ffi^rijient^um  unb  bee  33tamifmu8,  fifteen  jt^  beibe  auf 
bte  9iettqton  ber  -^ebrvier,  unb  o^ne  biefe  lourbe  e3  niemalS  tueber  etn  S^vijient^um  noc^> 
etnen  J?oran  gegeben  Ijaben. 

3a,  in  etnem  getoiffen  @tnne  tft  e«  «nn)tberleg(td(>  n>a$r,  baf  Vttr  ber  9)?ofatfc^en 
Sieltgton  etnen  grofen  X^ett  ber  2lufKarung  banfen,  beren  »tr  un3  tyeuttgeS  flags 
erfreuen.  iDenn  burc^  fie  rourbe  etne  fofibare  2Ua^r^eit,  ftclctye  bte  fld^  fetbfl  uberlaffenc 
SSernunft  erji  nafy  etner  tangfamen  ©ntnricfelung  rt^urbe  gefunben  ^aben,  bie  ?el)re  con 
tern  eintgen  ®ott,  vorUuftg  unter  bent  35dfe  »erbrettet,  unb  afe  etn  ©egenjlanb  be8 
bttnben  ®Iauben8  fo  lange  unter  bemfelben  er^aften,  bi8  fie  enbttci(>  in  ben  Ijellern  Stotftn 
ju  etnem  SSernunftbegriff  reifen  fonnte.  $Daburc^>  tturben  etnem  gro^en  ;J^ett  be3 
ajfenfc^engefdb,  fectytS  alle  bte  traurigen  Srrnjege  erfpart,  worauf  ber  ©laube  an  9SteIgotteret 
jute^t  ffl^ren  mu^,  unb  bte  tyebraifctye  SSerfaffung  er^ielt  ben  auSfcfyliepenben  ®orjug,  bap 
bie  JRettgion  ber  SBeifen  mit  ber  9?olf§religion  nictyt  in  btrectem  JBiberf^ruc^e  jlanb,  nne 
e«  bod()  bei  ben  attfgeftarten  ^eiben  ber  Salt  luar. — Schiller. 


LECTURE  II. 

In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed. 
GEN.  xxii.  18. 

IF  we  are  willing  to  allow  that  God  has  spoken  more 
or  less  by  all  the  religions  of  the  world — and  in  pro- 
portion to  the  elements  of  truth  contained  in  them  He 
must  have  done  so — then  it  manifestly  follows  that  in 
whatever  sense  the  Christ  was  His  special  and  chosen 
way  of  revealing  Himself,  all  other  religions  must  in  their 
degree  bear  witness  unto  Him.  That  they  may  directly 
do  so  is  perhaps  not  to  be  expected,  for  in  that  case  God 
must  have  spoken  specially  by  them ;  but  that  they  must 
indirectly  do  so  is  clear,  for  otherwise  the  voice  of  God 
would  give  an  uncertain  or  even  a  discordant  sound.  But 
in  point  of  fact  there  is  an  indirect  and  silent  witness 
borne  by  all  religions  to  the  Christ.  There  is  no  religion 
which  does  not  profess  to  deal  with  sin,  and  there  is  no 
religion  which  does  not  virtually  confess  its  inability  to 
deal  with  it.  There  is  no  religion  which  does  not  profess 
to  discriminate  between  right  and  wrong,  and  thereby 
witness  to  the  majesty  of  conscience.  There  is  no  religion 
worthy  of  the  name  which  does  not  profess  to  come  with 
a  message  from  God,  and  on  that  ground  to  demand  the 
attention  of  mankind.  But  surely  thus  far  the  testimony 
of  all  religions  is  in  favour  of,  rather  than  opposed  to,  the 
teaching  of  Him  who  claimed  to  be  the  Christ.  To  insist, 
therefore,  as  there  is  a  tendency  to  do  now-a-days,  upon 
the  fact  of  God's  having  spoken  by  other  religions  besides 


4°  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

our  own  can  really  have  no  other  effect  than  that  of 
exalting  our  own,  unless  it  is  done  with  the  concealed 
intention  of  disparaging  it.1  If  we  really  believe  that 
God's  message  by  Christ  was  exceptional,  paramount,  and 
final,  then  it  must  be  salutary  in  a  high  degree  to  trace 
the  lines  of  corroborative  evidence  as  they  discover  them- 
selves in  the  various  religions  of  mankind,  and  as  they 
converge  towards  Him ;  but  if  we  are  to  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  God  has  not  spoken  by  Christ  in  any  other 
way  than  He  has  spoken  by  Confucius,  by  Buddha,  or  by 
Muhammad,  in  a  higher  but  not  in  a  different  way,  then 
the  sooner  we  clearly  understand  this  the  better,  because 
such  a  conclusion  does  not  appear  to  be  in  any  sense 
compatible  with  the  distinct  teaching  of  Him  whom  we 
profess  to  follow.  As  philosophers  we  may  hold  the 
balance  evenly  between  all  religions,  and  strike  it  in 
favour  of  none;  as  Christians  we  cannot  do  so,  because 
Christ  demanded  nothing  less  than  the  entire  surrender 
of  the  whole  man,  and  if  we  refuse  this  we  virtually 
reject  Him.  We  have,  however,  already  attempted  to 
show  that  there  is  very  strong  presumptive  evidence 
against  the  development  of  Christianity  by  any  processes 
merely  natural,  after  the  manner  of  other  religions,  be- 
cause of  its  strong  and  essential  contrast  with  them ;  and 
consequently  the  more  we  study  other  religions,  provided 
we  study  our  own  fairly,  the  more  we  shall  be  persuaded 
of  its  intrinsic  difference,  and  of  its  unique  superiority. 

1  "Many  are  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  a  careful  study  of 
other  religions,  but  the  greatest  of  all  is  that  it  teaches  us  to  appreciate 
more  truly  what  we  possess  in  our  own.  When  do  we  feel  the  blessings 
of  our  own  country  more  warmly  and  truly  than  when  we  return  from 
abroad  ?  It  is  the  same  with  regard  to  religion.  .  .  .  We  have  done  so 
little  to  gain  our  religion,  we  have  suffered  so  little  in  the  cause  of  truth, 
that  however  highly  we  prize  our  own  Christianity,  we  never  prize  it 
highly  enough  until  we  have  compared  it  with  the  religions  of  the  rest 
of  the  world."— Max  Miiller,  Chips,  etc.,  i.  183. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  41 

If,  however,  there  was  no  supernatural  origin,  properly 
so  called,  for  Christianity,  it  is  clear  that  we  must  seek 
its  origin  among  the  manifold  operations  of  nature.  It 
must  have  developed  itself  by  a  process  of  evolution  from 
the  spontaneous  energies  and  resources  of  humanity.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact  we  know  its  pedigree  if  we  do  not 
know  its  origin.  Christianity  was  the  historical  develop- 
ment of  Judaism,  or,  as  it  is  now  called,  Mosaism.  All 
the  first  preachers  of  Christianity  had  been  notoriously 
disciples  of  Moses,  and  all  zealous  of  the  law.  The  earliest 
home  of  Christianity  was  Palestine,  and  indeed  Jerusalem. 
And  in  our  survey  of  the  religions  of  the  world,  if  there  is 
none  that  does  not  bear  indirect  testimony  to  the  religion 
of  Christ,  there  appears  to  be  one  marked  out  from  all  the 
rest  by  the  direct  testimony  that  it  bears  to  Him.  This, 
however,  must  of  course  be  a  matter  of  inference,  and  not 
of  proof.  Still  the  inference  may  be  so  strong  as  to 
amount  to  reasonable  proof.  Let  us  look,  for  example,  at 
the  general  tenor  of  Jewish  history.  The  whole  of  that 
history,  as  we  have  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  very 
probably  completed  several  centuries  before  Christ.  It 
can  have  undergone  no  material  alteration  after  it  was 
completed.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that 
the  history  of  Abraham,  for  instance,  was  a  late  addition. 
There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  lives  of  the 
patriarchs  were  as  early  as  the  Exodus,  perhaps  even 
earlier.  But  this  matters  not.  Put  the  date  of  Genesis 
in  its  present  form  as  late  as  the  sixth  or  seventh  century 
before  Christ,  or,  if  it  is  desirable,  even  later,  monstrous 
as  the  theory  may  be,  we  find  in  the  first  thirty  chapters 
the  record  of  a  promise  given  to  the  patriarchs  no  less 
than  five  times  to  the  effect  that  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  shall  be  blessed  in  them.  Three  times  is  this  pro- 
mise given  with  reference  to  Abraham ;  twice  directly  to 
him ;  once  indirectly  of  him ;  once  it  is  repeated  to  Isaac, 


42  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

and  once  again  to  Jacob.  The  first  time  it  is  made  per-, 
sonally  to  Abraham,  the  second  time  it  is  restricted  to  his 
seed,  and  the  form  is  slightly  changed  from  "be  blessed" 
to  "  bless  themselves."  In  this  changed  form  the  promise 
is  renewed  to  Isaac,  while  to  Jacob  it  is  repeated  as  before, 
but  given  to  him  and  his  seed.8 

In  whatever  way,  therefore,  this  promise  is  explained, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  a  substantive  fact  of  the 
literature,  and  of  very  ancient  date.  It  appears,  however, 
and  this  is  very  important,  to  have  been  overlooked,  at 
least  to  a  great  extent,  for  it  was  imbedded  in  another 
promise  which  evidently  took  firmer  hold  of  the  popular- 
mind,  as  it  naturally  would — the  promise,  namely,  of  the 
possession  of  the  land.  For  it  is  remarkable  that,  when- 
ever this  promise  is  alluded  to,  as  it  often  is  subsequently, 

z  "  h  ffol  means  '  in  tbee ; ' — that  is,  '  in  thee  as  their  type,'  or  '  in  thy 
faith.'  In  the  original  passage  it  has  the  sense,  *  by  thee ; ' — that  is,  the 
form  of  their  blessing  shall  be,  by  thy  name.  '  The  Lord  bless  thee  as 
He  blessed  Abraham  and  his  descendants.'" — Jowett  on  Galatians 
iii.  8. 

The  passages  where  the  promise  occurs  are  Gen.  xii.  3,  In  thee  shall  all 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed,  spoken  to  Abraham;  xviii.  18,  All  t/>e 
nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him,  spoken  of  Abraham ;  xxii. 
18,  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  bless  themselves,  spoken  to 
Abraham ;  xxvi.  4,  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  bless  them- 
.selves,  spoken  to  Isaac;  xxviii.  14,  In  thee  and  in  thy  seed,  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed,  spoken  to  Jacob.  In  the  first  and  last  cases 
the  word  used  for  earth  is  mplNH.  In  the  other  three  fpNH.  The  only 
other  passages  in  which  the  reflective  form  "  bless  himself,"  etc.,  is  used, 
are  Deut.  xxix.  19;  Ps.  Ixxii.  17;  Isaiah  Ixv.  16,  bis;  Jer.  iv.  2.  As  in 
three  out  of  the  five  passages  in  Genesis  the  form  of  the  verb  is  a  passive, 
and  as  there  are  certain  clear  instances  in  which  the  reflective  form  is 
used  in  a  passive  sense — e.g.  Prov.  xxxi.  30;  Micah  vi.  16;  Ezek.  xix. 
12 ;  Lam.  iv.  1,  etc. — there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  it  is  at  least 
permissible  to  regard  the  passive  sense  as  the  correct  one  in  all ;  but  the 
real  import  of  the  promise  is  independent  of  any  such  grammatical  am- 
biguity. Let  us  suppose  that  the  right  way  in  which  to  take  the  words  in 
the  five  cases  is  in  the  reflective  sense,  as  the  passive  is  sometimes  reflec- 
tive— e.g.  Gen.  iii.  10;  Ps.  Iv.  1-3,  etc.;  and  that  the  "in  thee"  indicates 
not  the  channel  of  the  blessing  through  which  it  is  derived  but  the  stan- 


IL]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  43 

it  is  the  inheritance  rather  than  the  seed  which  is  men- 
tioned. This  is  the  case,  for  example,  in  the  Psalms,3  in 
the  Pentateuch  very  frequently,  and  in  the  Prophets.  The 
oath  to  Abraham  is  commonly  referred  to  the  occupation 
of  Canaan,  and  whenever  there  is  any  reference  to  the 
seed,  it  is  the  people  that  is  meant.  In  fact,  there  is  no 
repetition  of  the  promise  about  the  person  or  the  seed, 
which  is  five  times  given  in  Genesis,  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Perhaps  the  nearest  approach 
to  a  repetition  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  words  of  Micah, 4 
Thou  wilt  perform  the  truth  to  Jacob  and  the  mercy  to 
Abraham,  which  thou  hast  sworn  unto  our  fathers  from  the 
days  of  old.  This  being  written  probably  in  the  days  of 
Hezekiah  cannot  be  understood  of  the  possession  of  the 
land,  but  may  justly  be  regarded  as  a  spiritual  assurance. 

dard  or  example  of  blessing  according  to  which  it  is  acknowledged,  then 
we  have  the  assertion  that  all  nations  of  the  earth  shall  bless  themselves  in 
Abraham  and  his  seed;  that  is,  all  nations  of  the  earth  shall  regard 
Abraham  and  his  seed  as  the  highest  examples  of  blessing — a  promise 
which  is  either  significant  or  meaningless ;  if  it  is  meaningless,  here  at 
any  rate  it  is  for  any  one  who  chooses  to  speculate  on  its  possible  mean- 
ing ;  but  if  it  is  significant,  then  its  only  meaning  can  be  that  all  nations 
shall  recognise  in  Abraham  the  most  conspicuous  instance  of  blessing, 
which  at  least  implies  a  consciousness  on  the  part  of  the  writer,  whoever 
he  was,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  was  to  be  acknowledged  by  the 
world  at  large ;  that  the  world  at  large  was  to  sit  at  the  feet  of  Abraham 
in  admiration  of  the  extent  to  which  God  had  blessed  him.  This  is  emi- 
nently true  if  Abraham  was  the  recipient  of  real  blessings  and  a  real 
covenant ;  eminently  untrue  if  he  had  been  deceived  and  was  the  pos- 
sessor of  no  covenant.  It  is  eminently  true  now  to  those  who  are  par- 
takers of  the  faith  of  Abraham;  it  is  utterly  false  if  the  promise  to 
Abraham  was  a  fiction,  and  the  supposed  fulfilment  of  it  a  mistake.  The 
particular  form  or  manner  in  which  St.  Paul  uses  the  promise  in  no  way 
affects  the  inherent  significance  of  the  language,  independently  of  all 
grammatical  niceties,  if  there  was  any  actual  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, and  if  the  claims  of  Jesus  were  valid.  That  significance  remains 
even  if  we  demur  to  St.  Paul's  argument.  Its  real  significance  was  not 
given  by  him,  but  by  the  author  of  the  promise  in  Genesis,  whoever  he 
was. 
3  Eg.  Ps.  cv.  9,  11.  «  Micah  vii.  20.  See  also  Lecture  iv. 


44  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

But  it  must  be  observed  that  it  is  in  itself  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  in  Micah's  time  of  the  promise  in 
Genesis,  and  that  it  was  then  very  ancient. 

There  appears,  then,  on  the  surface  of  the  Jewish 
literature,  and  in  one  of  the  earliest  portions  of  it,  a 
promise  to  the  effect  that  in  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed,  or  shall  bless 
themselves.  Whether  any  such  promise  was  ever  given  or 
not,  there  it  is;  we  have  only  now  to  deal  with  literary 
facts,  and  this  apparent  promise  is  a  literary  fact.  Very 
far  back  in  the  annals  of  the  Jewish  nation  we  meet  with 
this  expression  of  a  consciousness  on  their  part  that  they 
were  to  be  the  channels  or  the  standards  of  blessing  to 
mankind ;  for,  whatever  else  the  promise  is,  it  must  cer- 
tainly be  so  regarded.  But  what  is  equally  strange,  is 
that  this  consciousness  appears  to  a  great  extent  to  have 
died  away.  The  nation  itself  was  isolated,  and  exclusive 
in  its  manners,  habits,  and  sympathies.  In  the  prophets, 
especially  in  Isaiah,  there  are  indeed  many  passages  in 
which  this  consciousness  revives,  and  not  only  revives, 
but  increases  in  intensity  and  depth.  This,  however,  is  in 
strong  contrast  to  the  historic  development  of  the  nation's 
life.  While  we  observe  that  there  is  no  distinct  repetition 
of  the  promise  to  Abraham  later  than  Genesis,  we  cannot 
forget  that  in  another  form  it  is  continually  repeated.  To 
take  two  examples  only,  Behold,  thou  slialt  call  a  nation 
that  thou  knowest  not,  and  nations  that  knew  not  thee  shall 
run  unto  thee  because  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  for  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel ;  for  He  hath  glorified  thee.5  And  the  Gen- 
tiles shall  come  to  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy 
rising.6  What  is  this  but  the  same  assurance  given  in 
another  form  ?  In  all  these  cases,  we  must  acknowledge 
that  there  is  the  clear  expression  of  a  deep  consciousness 
that  the  mission  of  Israel  was  to  be  a  blessing  to  the 

5  Isaiah  Iv.  5.  •  Isaiah  Ix.  3. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  45 

nations.  This  is  manifest  at  the  dawn  of  their  history, 
and  it  is  equally  conspicuous  in  the  palmy  days  of  Heze- 
kiah's  reign.  But  there  is  only  one  way  in  which  it  can 
be  said  that  the  nations  of  the  world  have  derived  bless- 
ing from  Israel,  and  that  is,  as  the  prophet  indicates, 
through  the  knowledge  of  their  God.  We  must,  therefore, 
either  acknowledge  this  obligation,  or  we  must  repudiate 
it.  If  we  repudiate  it  we  shall  become  involved  in  the 
somewhat  difficult  task  of  having  to  show  that  there  was 
no  intrinsic  superiority  in  the  sublime  monotheism  and 
pure  morality  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  over  the  vague 
and  dubious  conjectures  of  heathenism  and  mythology; 
that  the  Psalms,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Law,  are  at  most 
only  on  a  par  with  the  corresponding  productions  of  other 
nations,  if  indeed  they  are  not  inferior  to  them.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  acknowledge  this  obligation,  then  we  shall 
have  to  account  for  the  fact  that,  ages  before  it  was  in- 
curred, this  promise  to  Abraham  was  recorded  in  the 
national  literature,  answering  in  a  remarkable  way  to  the 
subsequent  development  of  events.  For  in  this  case  we 
have  not  to  deal  with  the  question  of  the  promise  being 
given,  but  with  the  fact  of  its  having  been  recorded. 

When,  however,  we  bear  in  mind  that  Abraham's 
previous  associations  had  been  idolatrous,  and  that  his 
father,  if  not  he  himself,  had  served  other  gods,  we  shall 
have  to  account  for  the  additional  circumstances  of  his 
change  of  faith,  and  to  consider  that  the  narrative  in 
Genesis  is  the  only  narrative  we  possess  of  the  first 
commencement  of  a  mighty  revolution  of  thought,  which 
was  most  important  and  far-reaching  in  its  consequences. 
As  far  as  we  know,  the  origin  of  what  afterwards  became 
Israelitish  monotheism  was  this  very  episode  in  Abraham's 
life ;  and,  according  to  the  narrative,  the  form  it  took  was 
that  of  a  definite  promise  given  by  God.  In  other  words, 
as  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Abraham  should  have 


46  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

originated  this  faith  for  himself;7  and  as,  from  the  facts 
before  us,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  the  most  remarkable 
results  flowed  from  it,  the  only  natural  inference  is  that 
the  reality  of  a  revelation  is  proved  in  the  character  and 
greatness  of  the  thing  revealed.  The  call  of  Abraham  and 
the  promise  given  to  him  stand  out  in  marked  contrast  to 
all  that  can  be  explained  on  merely  natural  principles,  and 
here  if  anywhere  we  are  constrained  to  admit  the  operation 
of  forces  and  influences  beyond  the  limits  of  nature.  If 
we  do  not  postulate  the  existence  and  action  of  a  cause 
which  cannot  be  traced  home  to  nature,  we  must  leave 
unaccounted  for  and  unaccountable  great  spiritual  results 
which  it  is  equally  impossible  to  deny.  When,  however, 
we  further  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  this  par- 
ticular promise  to  Abraham  exists  nowhere  in  the  Old 
Testament8  so  plainly  as  it  does  in  Genesis,  till  an  allusion 
to  it  reappears  in  the  first  verse  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel 
and  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians ;  we  must  then 

7  The  words  of  Professor  Max  Miiller  show  very  strikingly  that  there 
is  only  one  way  in  which  the  spiritual  advance  we  perceive  in  Abraham 
is  to  be  accounted  for.     "  And  if  we  are  asked  how  this  one  Abraham 
preserved  not  only  the  primitive  intuition  of  God  as  He  had  revealed 
Himself  to  all  mankind,  but  passed  through  the  denial  of  all  other  gods 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  one  God,  we  are  content  to  answer  that  it  was  by 
a  special  Divine  Revelation.     We  do  not  indulge  in  theological  phrase- 
ology, but  we  mean  every  word  to  its  fullest  extent.   The  Father  of  Truth 
chooses  His  own  prophets,  and  He  speaks  to  them  in  a  voice  stronger  than 
the  voice  of  thunder.     It  is  the  same  inner  voice  through  which  God 
speaks  to  all  of  us.     That  voice  may  dwindle  away,  and  become  hardly 
audible ;  it  may  lose  its  Divine  accent,  and  sink  into  the  language  of 
worldly  prudence ;  but  it  may  also,  from  time  to  time,  assume  its  real 
nature,  with  the  chosen  of  God,  and  sound  into  their  ears  as  a  voice  from 
heaven.   A '  divine  instinct '  may  sound  more  scientific  and  less  theological ; 
but  in  truth  it  would  neither  be  an  appropriate  name  for  what  is  a  gift  or 
grace  accorded  to  but  few,  nor  would  it  be  a  more  scientific,  i.e.  a  more 
intelligible  word  than  'special  revelation.'  " — Chips  from  a  German  Work- 
shop, i.  373. 

8  A  remarkable  allusion  to  both  the  promises  is  found  in  Joshua  xxiv. 
3,  13,  but  the  first  is  subordinate  and  incidental.    This  narrative,  how- 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  47 

put  over  against  a  very  ancient  recorded  promise,  which 
has  all  the  appearance  of  a  prophecy,  the  no  less  certain 
historical  fact  of  the  birth  of  a  remarkable  personage  who 
was  alleged  to  have  fulfilled  it,  and  whose  advent  would 
have  been  its  complete  fulfilment  if  all  or  nearly  all  that 
was  related  of  him  was  true.9 

We  pass  on,  however,  to  notice  other  points  in  the 
historic  development  of  the  national  life  of  Israel.  First, 
then,  comes  the  long  period  of  bondage  in  Egypt,  which, 
according  to  the  narrative,  had  been  distinctly  foretold  to 
Abraham.1  The  memory  of  this  bondage  and  of  the  re- 
demption from  it  was  too  deeply  imprinted  on  the  national 
mind  and  on  the  national  literature  for  either  one  or  the 
other  to  be  for  one  moment  doubted.  Nor,  on  the  sup- 
position of  a  post  eventum  prophecy,  is  it  easy  to  under- 
stand why  there  should  have  been  left  upon  the  face  of  it 
a  disagreement  with  the  ostensible  record  of  its  fulfilment.2 
While,  however,  we  cannot  prove  the  actual  occurrence  of 
the  prophecy,  from  which  of  course  the  whole  supernatural 
character  of  the  narrative  and  its  Divine  claims  would 
follow,  we  can  show  that  a  large  variety  of  circumstances 
in  the  history  points  consistently  to  the  inference  that  we 
must  make  allowance  for  the  operation  of  other  than  merely 
natural  agencies.  Abraham's  actual  knowledge  of  God  is 
itself  the  strongest  argument  for  a  direct  revelation,  since, 
under  the  circumstances,  it  cannot  be  accounted  for  with- 
out; but  when  we  have  arrived  thus  far  the  antecedent 
improbability  of  certain  additional  features  of  the  same 
narrative  is  to  a  large  extent  removed. 

ever,  not  only  presupposes  that  in  Genesis,  but  implies  familiarity  with  it 
among  the  people  for  whose  benefit  this  was  written.  It  is  also  valuable 
as  showing  the  earliest  interpretation  of  Genesis  xxii.  18.  Cf.  Hosea  i. 
10  (ii.  1). 

9  For  the  contrast  between  the  character  of  Abraham  and  the  highest 
analogous  Hindu  conceptions,  see  Hardwick,  Christ  and  other  Masters, 
part  ii.  164  seq.  l  Gen.  xv.  13.  2  Ex.  xii.  40,  41. 


48  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

And  so  if  we  find  a  highly  exceptional  deliverance 
occurring  in  the  history  of  the  people,  which  in  its  sub- 
stantial features  cannot  be  questioned;  as,  for  instance, 
that  it  was  accomplished  without  a  blow  being  struck  on 
their  part ;  that  it  was  preceded  by  a  variety  of  national 
calamities  befalling  the  Egyptians,  which  if  not  entirely 
peculiar  were  at  least  of  peculiar  severity ;  that  this  de- 
liverance was  brought  about  by  means  of  a  person  who 
had  himself  undergone  a  long  period  of  probation  in  Egypt 
and  in  exile  from  Egypt ;  that  he  laid  the  foundation  of 
his  people's  greatness  and  of  their  national  peculiarities,  as 
well  as  of  their  very  national  existence,  by  giving  them  a 
law  which  he  succeeded  in  persuading  them  was  of  Divine 
origin,  and  which  was  undoubtedly  marked  by  many 
features  of  exceptional  prudence,  not  to  say  of  Divine 
wisdom ;  that,  under  the  circumstances,  it  is  hard  to 
account  for  the  profound  submission  with  which  the  Law 
was  immediately  received,  if  its  promulgation  was  not 
accompanied  with  circumstances  of  special  solemnity  and 
awe,  such  as  those  which  are  recorded  in  the  very  narra- 
tive to  which  we  are  indebted  for  the  code  itself;  that  the 
position  occupied  by  this  person  was  entirely  unique  in 
the  annals  of  the  nation,  so  that,  in  the  long  roll  of  their 
kings  and  prophets,  no  second  arose  like  him;  that  he 
claimed  to  stand  to  his  people  in  the  position  of  a  mediator 
with  God,  and  to  be  the  bearer  of  a  message  from  God ; 
that  this  claim  must  at  least  in  part  be  judged  by  the 
way  in  which  it  was  advanced,  and  by  the  results  which 
followed  it,  as  well  as  by  the  character  of  the  message 
itself;  that  it  is  equally  hard  to  maintain  the  charge  of 
imposture  against  Moses  in  the  face  of  all  the  evidence 
which  confronts  us,  and  to  acquit  him  of  that  charge  if  the 
narrative  which  professes,  in  part  at  any  rate,  to  be  by 
him,  and  which,  if  not  genuine,  at  least  claims  to  be 
authentic,  is  not  substantially  trustworthy  as  a  narrative  of 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  49 

fact ;  that  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  subsequent  history 
and  literature  it  is  hardly  possible  to  overestimate  the 
greatness  of  his  character  and  mission,  and  yet  at  the  same 
time  is  not  possible  to  estimate  them  duly  and  reject  the 
general  trustworthiness  of  the  record;  if,  I  say,  we  find 
all  this,  which  we  doubtless  do  find,  it  becomes  a  question 
whether  an  antecedent  probability  is  not  thereby  created 
in  favour  of  the  highly  exceptional  significance  which  the 
record  attributes  to  the  history.  We  are  undoubtedly 
dealing  with  a  series  of  events  which  are  altogether  be- 
yond the  scope  of  ordinary  human  circumstance  or  national 
experience.  Is  it  not  possible  that  their  significance  in 
the  scheme  of  God's  providential  government  may  be 
something  more  than  ordinary  ?  Nay,  must  it  not  be 
so? 

Another  feature  altogether  exceptional  is  to  be  noted  in 
the  wanderings  that  followed  the  Exodus.  In  the  face  of 
the  corroborative  evidence  afforded  by  the  Psalms  and  the 
Prophets,  it  is  not  possible  to  doubt  the  truth  of  their 
main  incidents — for  example,  their  general  character  and 
long  duration.3  In  fact,  so  deeply  did  the  influence  of  the 
nomad  life  in  the  wilderness  imprint  itself  on  the  national 
character,  that  traces  of  it  may  be  said  to  exist  at  the  pre- 
sent day.  And  yet  to  discover  any  satisfactory  natural 
causes  upon  which  the  wanderings  may  be  adequately  ac- 
counted for  is  not  easy.  How  is  it  that  a  lawgiver  whose 
energy  and  genius  never  failed  him,  having  delivered  his 
people  from  the  thraldom  of  the  then  mightiest  nation  of 
the  world,  and  having  successfully  maintained  their  inde- 
pendence against  the  tribes  and  kingdoms  of  the  desert, 
should  be  unable  to  crown  the  work  of  his  life  by  leading 
them  to  the  goal  of  their  common  desires ;  but  after  wast- 

3  See,  for  instance,  Ps.  Ixviii.  7,  8;  Ixxviii.  13  seq. ;  Ixxx.  8;  Ixxxi. 
5-10;  xcv.  10;  cv.  39-44;  cvi.  17-19;  cxxxv.  cxxxvi.  Hosea  xi.  1;  xii. 
13 ;  xiii.  4.  Amos  v.  25,  26.  Micah  vi.  4,  5 ;  vii.  15,  etc.  etc. 


50  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

ing  forty  years  of  fruitless  lingering  in  the  desert,  should 
deliberately  consign  that  work  to  a  younger  officer  of  his 
own  appointment,  who  was  not  personally  better  fitted  to 
accomplish  it  than  he  was  himself  ?  These  things  are  in 
themselves  so  improbable  that  we  must  either  reject  them 
historically,  which  we  cannot  do,  or  else  taken  together 
they  point  us  to  the  only  reason  for  them,  which  is  that 
assigned. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  the  same  characteristics  confront 
us  at  every  turn.  As  we  read  page  after  page  of  the 
history,  we  are  equally  perplexed  whether  to  take  it  with 
such  supernatural  elements  as  are  inseparable  therefrom, 
or  to  attempt,  however  hopelessly,  to  reduce  it  to  such 
dimensions  as  may  appear  not  to  transcend  the  limits  of 
the  intelligible  and  the  ordinary.  For  example,  the  main 
features  of  the  occupation  of  Canaan  .are  undeniable.4 
And  everywhere  the  most  conspicuous  of  those  features  is 
the  consciousness  with  which  the  whole  nation  is  pos- 
sessed that  they  are  about  to  inherit  a  country  promised 
to  their  fathers.  The  reason  of  this  persuasion  is  apparent 
on  the  surface  of  their  literature.  The  poetry,  prophecy, 
and  history,  are  alike  imprinted  with  it.  If  we  suppose 
for  a  moment  that  the  promise  was  an  after-thought  of  the 
literature,  then  the  history  becomes  unintelligible.  If  we 
reject  the  history  as  incredible,  then  the  literature  and 
history  alike  become  unmeaning  and  inexplicable.  If  we 
concede  the  promise  as  an  actual  fact,  then  doubtless  a 
sufficient  impulse  is  discovered  for  the  current  of  the 
history ;  but  then,  at  the  same  time,  the  germ  of  the 
supernatural  is  conceded,  and  the  foundation  laid  thereby 
for  its  occasional  if  not  continual  presence  afterwards. 
And  it  is  this  general  broad  conclusion  and  the  natural 
inference  of  this  dilemma  which  is  vastly  more  important 
than  the  resolution,  one  way  or  the  other,  of  any  question 
4  See  Psalm  xliv.  1-3;  Ixxviii.  55;  cxxxv.  12;  cxxxvi.  21,  22. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  51 

as  to  whether  the  earth's  diurnal  motion,  for  example,  was 
arrested  at  the  command  of  Joshua,  or  the  like. 

The  promise  given  to  Abraham,  however,  might  be  less 
significant  if  it  stood  alone,  remarkable  as  it  would  still 
be  in  connection  with  the  history;  but  it  does  not,  and 
before  we  close  the  last  of  the  books  of  Moses  we  meet 
with  another  promise  in  strong  contrast  with  it — the  pro- 
mise, namely,  that  he  gives  the  people,  of  a  prophet  who 
shall  arise  from  among  them  like  unto  himself.5  Now 
this  promise,  however  it  is  interpreted,  has  the  advantage 
of  being  very  clear  and  definite,  and  it  is  furthermore  dis- 
tinguished by  a  comment  which  is  passed  upon  it  in  the 
book  itself.  For  we  are  distinctly  told6  that  there  arose 
not  a  prophet  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses  after  his  death.  It 
is  impossible,  therefore,  that  the  words  can  refer  to  Joshua. 
But  it  is  equally  impossible  not  to  accept  them  as  a  pro- 
mise or  prophecy.7  It  is  clear  that  they  were  intended  and 
understood  as  such.  The  comment  referred  to  seems  to 
imply  no  less.  And  the  later  we  place  the  date  of  that 
comment  the  more  significant  it  becomes.  But  in  point  of 
fact  we  are  independent  of  any  such  considerations,  for 
down  to  the  time  of  Malachi  there  is  no  name  in  the 
annals  of  the  nation  so  great  as  that  of  Moses.  The  moral, 
therefore,  of  the  promise  is  that  the  national  expectation 

8  Deut.  xviii.  15  seq.  6  Deut.  xxxiv.  10. 

7  It  has  been  suggested  by  Eichhorn  and  others  that  the  promise  given 
by  Moses  was  virtually  and  in  fact  the  origin  of  the  phenomenon  of  pro- 
phecy as  it  was  afterwards  developed  in  the  Jewish  nation.  But  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  several  centuries  elapsed  between  the  death  of 
Moses  and  the  era  of  Samuel,  and  a  long  period  between  the  era  of 
Samuel  and  that  of  the  prophets  generally,  and  that  no  one  of  the  actual 
prophets  bore  any  resemblance  to  Moses,  so  that  on  this  supposition  the 
promise  really  failed  to  accomplish  that  which  is  attributed  to  it  so  far 
as  personal  likeness  to  the  lawgiver  is  concerned ;  in  addition  to  which 
we  should  even  then  have  to  account  for  the  bold  and  hazardous  predic- 
tion of  Moses,  as  well  as  for  the  ultimate  consequences  of  it  over  which 
he  could  have  no  control. 


52  The  CJirist  of  Jezvisli  History.  [LECT. 

was  aroused,  but  the  entire  course  of  the  history  gives  no 
hint  of  its  being  realised.  As  far  as  the  testimony  of  fact 
goes,  the  last  verses  of  Deuteronomy  might  have  been 
added  when  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  closed, 
for  the  Second  Temple  arose  in  its  glory  without  witness- 
ing the  rise  of  any  prophet  who  could  claim  to  be  the 
successor  of  Moses.  But  then,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
impossible  to  regard  the  promise  as  a  later  interpolation ; 
for  it  is  put  into  the  lips  of  Moses.  And  if  we  can  imagine 
for  a  moment  any  late  writer,  such  as  Jeremiah  for  ex- 
ample, falsely  ascribing  a  promise  like  this  to  Moses,  what 
possible  meaning  could  it  have  had  ?  The  verdict  of  history 
had  done  nothing  but  falsify  the  hope  expressed,  and  the 
remark  at  the  end  of  the  book  precluded  the  possibility  of 
its  being  interpreted  of  Joshua,  so  that  we  are  wholly  at  a 
loss  to  understand  it.  And  yet  here,  on  the  very  surface 
of  the  Pentateuch,  ostensibly  the  oldest  portion  of  the 
Jewish  literature,  we  find  this  clear,  definite,  distinct  pro- 
mise, to  the  fulfilment  of  which  the  rest  of  that  literature 
bears  no  evidence.  In  the  light  of  these  facts  we  are 
doubtless  at  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  in 
proof  that  the  expectation  thus  aroused  in  the  nation 
had  not  died  out  in  the  time  of  Christ;  but  to  what 
can  that  expectation  be  referred,  if  not  to  this  unique 
promise  ? 

If,  then,  the  consciousness  of  Abraham  was  that  his  seed 
should  be  the  blessing  of  the  world,  the  consciousness  of 
Moses  was  that  his  prophetic  office  should  give  place  to 
Another.  Each  of  these  facts  on  the  surface  of  the  litera- 
ture is  too  patent  to  be  denied.  They  stand  written  in  clear 
and  legible  characters  that  cannot  be  mistaken,  and  they 
are  really  typical  of  the  rest  of  the  literature.  From  first 
to  last  it  is  marked  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  if  we  may 
so  say,  with  the  consciousness  of  being  preparatory  for 
something  yet  to  come.  There  is  a  fearlessness  of  pre- 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  53 

dictive  assertion  about  it.  Deal  with  the  several  predictions 
one  by  one  as  we  may,  this  general  characteristic  remains 
indestructible.  It  is  stamped  on  the  history  no  less  than 
on  those  writings  which  are  ostensibly  and  professedly 
prophetical.  We  meet  with  it  as  early  as  Abraham,  and 
we  encounter  it  again  in  the  time  of  Moses.  It  is  indeed 
possible  to  deny  that  the  writer  of  these  two  passages  in- 
tended them  to  be  predictions,  but  it  is  not  possible  to  deny 
that  they  have  the  form  of  phophecy  and  the  appearance 
of  being  predictive.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  accept 
them  as  actual  prophecies,  we  shall  probably  not  deny  that 
they  were  fulfilled  in  Christ. 

The  Jewish  history,  moreover,  as  a  whole,  is  distinguished 
from  all  other  history  by  its  extraordinary  parabolic  or 
didactic  character.  This  is  true  at  whatever  period  we 
take  it.  The  history  of  the  wanderings,  for  example,  is  a 
wonderful  picture  of  human  life.  The  history  of  the  occu- 
pation and  of  the  judges  is  scarcely  less  so.  The  conduct 
of  Israel  is  like  the  conduct  of  a  wayward  child,  or  of  a 
person  whom  adversity  cannot  teach,  and  the  discipline  to 
which  the  nation  is  subjected  is  of  a  kind  similar  to  theirs. 
But  of  no  other  history  is  this  true  to  anything  like  the 
same  extent.  It  is  as  though  this  nation  were  under  the 
immediate  guidance  and  the  special  discipline  of  heaven, 
and  this  is  shown  quite  as  much  by  the  natural  as  by  the 
supernatural  features  of  the  history.  Leave  out  every 
incident  which  does  not  fall  strictly  within  the  limits  of 
natural  experience,  and  you  have  still  in  the  development 
of  the  national  history  what  may  well  be  regarded  as  the 
result  of  peculiar  Divine  direction,  and  what  has  all  the 
appearance  of  being  a  model  national  history,  designed 
expressly  for  the  instruction  of  all  other  nations. 

After  the  subjugation  of  Canaan,  the  great  turning-point 
in  Israel's  history  is  the  election  of  a  king.  Under  Samuel 
the  offices  of  judge  and  prophet  were  combined — he  was 


54  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

the  last  of  the  judges,  the  first  of  the  prophets  after  Moses. 
The  movement  in  favour  of  monarchy,  however,  did  not 
proceed  from  him,  but  from  the  people ;  but  the  first 
monarch  was  Samuel's  appointment ;  so  that  the  king 
was  developed  out  of  the  office  of  the  judge,  and  was 
sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the  prophet.  The  history 
of  the  choice  and  subsequent  rejection  of  Saul  is  so 
remarkable  that  it  is  difficult  to  divest  it  of  all  super- 
natural elements.  Why  was  Saul  accepted  by  the  nation 
as  their  lawful  sovereign  ?  Mainly  on  account  of  Samuel's 
appointment.  Why  was  it  afterwards  understood  that  he 
was  rejected  and  that  another  was  chosen  in  his  place  ? 
Solely  because  Samuel  has  declared  it.  He  was  the  virtual 
king-maker ;  he  put  down  one  and  set  up  another.  Was 
his  authority,  then,  a  pretence  merely  or  a  shadow  ?  Were 
the  whole  nation  duped  into  believing  Samuel  to  be  a 
prophet  of  the  Lord,  when  he  was  only  self-deceived  if  he 
was  not  imposing  on  them  ?  Upon  reviewing  the  history 
calmly,  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  Samuel's  conduct 
was  that  of  a  self-deceiver  or  an  impostor.  There  must 
have  been  truth  at  the  bottom  of  it,  as  witnessed  by  its 
effects.  But  if  there  was  truth  at  the  bottom  of  it,  was'  it 
not  truth  which  implied  a  revelation  ?  For  if  there  was 
no  authoritative  Divine  communication,  then  there  was 
imposture  or  self-deception — that  is  to  say,  there  was 
falsehood  and  not  truth  at  the  bottom  of  Samuel's  conduct, 
in  which  case  the  entire  framework  of  the  subsequent 
history  becomes  unintelligible.  We  cannot  understand 
how  it  was  that  one  dynasty  should  have  supplanted 
another;  that  the  supplanting  dynasty  should  have  been 
believed,  as  it  was  believed,  to  be  grounded  solely  on  the 
Divine  word,  and  that  this  belief  should  have  been  ratified 
by  the  event,  and  not  subsequently  created  by  it,  as  the 
evidence  of  circumstances  shows  it  was  not,  if  all  this 
rested  on  the  mere  assertion  of  a  professed  prophet,  who 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  55 

claimed  to  speak  in  the  name  and  with  the  direct  authority 
of  God,  and  whose  conduct  cannot  be  sufficiently  accounted 
for  if  he  did  not. 

Thus  far,  then,  the  history  shows  us  in  anticipation  a 
seed,  or  a  world-wide  blessing  by  the  seed,  a  prophet,  and 
a  king.  As  yet,  however,  it  has  given  us  nothing  more 
than  the  hope  of  any  one  of  them.  As  there  was  no 
prophet  between  Moses  and  Samuel,  so  in  the  case  of 
Samuel  himself,  though  the  first  of  the  prophets,  there 
was  no  likeness  to  Moses.  The  imagination  of  the  people 
was  ever  being  disciplined  into  the  desire  of  the  ideal 
prophet  through  acquaintance  with  the  actual  prophets. 
It  was  so  likewise  with  the  king,  but  by  an  inverse  process. 
Their  desire  for  a  king  was  spontaneous,  prompted  by  the 
examples  of  kingly  power  and  glory  which  they  had  around 
them.  Their  conception  of  the  prophet  was  based  upon 
recollection  and  experience,  while  it  was  stimulated  to  a 
yet  greater  ideal.  No  reality  could  surpass  the  conception  • 
of  the  prophet  which  was  enshrined  in  their  memory.  But 
the  ideal  king  never  came.  The  hope  of  the  nation  was 
fixed  on  Saul,  but  Saul  was  rejected,  and  his  reign  was  not 
one  of  glory.  Then  the  nation's  hopes  were  transferred  to 
David,  and  in  due  time  their  allegiance  became  his ;  but 
it  was  not  till  the  reign  of  Solomon  that  the  visions 
of  consolidated  strength,  peace,  and  prosperity,  naturally 
associated  with  the  thought  of  a  king,  were  realised,  and 
they  were  realised  for  a  little  while  only  to  be  destroyed 
the  more  irretrievably.  The  era  of  Solomon  was  never 
surpassed,  and  it  was  not  repeated ;  for  a  time  it  once  and 
again  revived,  but  only  to  relapse  into  imbecility,  and  to 
result  in  disappointment;  and  with  the  captivity  of 
Zedekiah  the  hopeful  line  of  Judah's  kings  was  brought  to 
a  close.  On  looking  back  over  the  completed  list,  we 
cannot  say  that  the  ideal  king  had  come ;  and  long  after- 
wards, when  the  cry  was  heard,  We  have  no  king  but  Ccesar, 


56  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

it  sounded  as  though  the  hope  itself  had  been  extinguished 
by  despair. 

And  yet,  here  again,  it  is  not  possible  to  survey  the 
history  and  investigate  the  foundations  of  the  hope,  and 
not  discover  that  there  was  valid  ground  for  it.  For 
example,  we  find,  according  to  the  history,  that  both  Saul 
and  Jonathan  are  aware  that  David  is  to  be  the  king.  Can 
it  be  that  such  a  statement  was  invented  in  order  to  natter 
the  reigning  house  of  David  ?  We  cannot  explain  its 
invention  thus.  Indeed,  we  cannot  understand  the  history 
of  Saul  at  all,  except  on  the  supposition  that  he  regarded 
David  as  the  destined  heir  to  his  throne.  But  why  should 
he  have  so  regarded  him  ?  David  had  no  pretensions  to 
supplant  Saul,  nor  any  prospect  or  hope  of  supplanting 
him,  except  on  the  ground  of  a  distinct  promise  given  by 
Samuel.  This  promise  was  given  him,  according  to  the 
narrative,  while  he  was  yet  young,  and  before  his  combat 
with  the  giant  of  Gath,  which  might  have  made  him  a 
favourite  with  the  people.8  Why  should  it  have  been  given 
him  ?  He  was  the  youngest  of  his  father's  house,  and  his 
father's  house  apparently  not  then  conspicuous.9  Samuel 
does  not  appear  to  have  known  David,  or  even  to  have 
known  of  him  when  he  was  sent  to  anoint  him.  We  can 
discover,  therefore,  no  motive  for  his  choice  and  no  principle 
in  his  selection.  Without  doing  unnatural  violence  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  history,  corroborated  as  it  is  by  the 
independent  evidence  of  many  other  passages,1  it  is  impos- 
sible to  take  into  account  all  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  anointing  of  David,  and  not  acknowledge  that  we 
are  led  up  by  natural  and  unavoidable  inference  to  the  very 
verge  of  something  which  we  cannot  explain  naturally, 
and  which  has  all  the  appearance  of  being  a  definite  pro- 

8  1  Sam.  xvi.  1-13. 

9  See  Grove's  art.  "Jesse"  in  the  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 
1  Cf.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  70 ;  Ixxxix.  19,  20,  seq.t  etc. 


IL]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  S7 

mise  from  the  Unseen,  but  how  communicated  we  cannot 
tell.  The  narrative  itself,  no  less  than  the  promise,  is 
deeply  imbued  with  these  extraordinary  elements,  and 
unless  we  tear  it  shred  from  shred,  we  cannot  get  rid  of 
them  ;  and  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  account  for 
them.  They  receive  a  certain  elucidation  from  the  process 
of  events,  and  if  we  reject  that  there  remains  no  other. 

If,  however,  we  attempt  to  resolve  the  original  promise 
to  David  into  an  act  of  mere  arbitrary  selection  on  the 
part  of  Samuel,  that  is  not  the  only  significant  incident 
we  have  to  explain.  If  Samuel's  choice  had  been  sufficient 
to  point  out  David  as  the  future  king,  and  to  excite  Saul's 
jealousy  in  consequence,  would  not  his  influence  have  been 
sufficient  to  displace  Saul  in  favour  of  David,  seeing  that 
it  was  to  the  same  influence  that  Saul  himself  owed  his 
crown?  But,  instead  of  this,  after  Samuel  has  anointed 
David,  we  hear  no  more  of  him,  with  the  single  exception 
of  the  episode  in  Naioth,2  till  we  are  told  of  his  death  and 
burial;  on  the  other  hand,  we  do  hear  of  Jonathan,  the 
heir-apparent,  quietly  acquiescing  in  the  career  marked  out 
for  David,  as  well  as  of  his  unexampled  and  nobly-dis- 
interested friendship  for  him.8  And  it  is  impossible  to 
deny  that,  after  a  series  of  years,  David  not  only  sat  on 
the  throne  which  was  Jonathan's  by  inheritance,  but  was 
able  successfully  to  consolidate  his  throne,  and  to  establish 
his  dynasty.  If,  then,  we  resolve  Samuel's  choice  of  David 
into  an  instance  of  remarkable  foresight,  we  can  scarcely 
account  for  it  even  on  that  theory  without  the  assistance 
of  other  than  merely  natural  powers;  and  we  have  yet 
further  difficulties  to  contend  with  in  the  life  of  David 
himself. 

For  we  find  that  after  David  is  securely  seated  on  the 
throne  of  Israel,  he  receives  another  prophetic  message 

2  1  Sam.  xix.  18 ;  xxv.  1.     Cf.  xv.  35. 

3  1  Sam.  xviii.  1 ;  xxiii.  18.     2  Sam.  ix. ;  xxi.  7. 


58  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

from  Nathan,  which  conditionally  promises  him  the  ever- 
lasting posession  of  the  throne.4  That  such  a  message  was 
delivered  to  him  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  doubt ;  the  only 
question  is,  From  whom  did  it  come?  Was  it  nothing 
more  than  the  repetition,  in  another  form  and  by  another 
prophet,  of  the  somewhat  similar  act  performed  by  Samuel  ? 
Was  it  nothing  more  than  the  adulation  of  a  courtier  decked 
out  in  a  religious  and  prophetic  garb  ?  However  we  try  to 
account  for  it,  we  have  to  face  this  fact,  that  the  last  king 
of  Judah  was  the  lineal  descendant  of  David ;  and  unless 
it  can  be  proved  that  the  narrative  in  Samuel  was  written 
subsequently  to  the  dissolution  of  the  monarchy,  it  is  im- 
possible to  divest  that  narrative  altogether  of  its  predictive 
features,  or  to  deny  to  them  a  certain  correspondence  in 
fact,  which  chiefly  surprises  us  because  it  is  not  greater  and 
more  minute.  The  subsequent  history  of  the  kingdom, 
and  the  disastrous  rent  it  suffered  after  the  reign  of 
Solomon,  is  itself  the  best  evidence  of  the  authenticity  of 
the  narrative  in  Samuel ;  because  that  could  not  have  been 
fabricated  after  events  had  to  a  large  extent  falsified  the 
promise  it  contained.  And  yet,  if  we  accept  it  as  authentic, 
we  find  ourselves  unable  to  explain  it  on  merely  natural 
principles.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  most  exalted 
aspirations  were  raised  in  the  minds  of  the  people  as  to  the 
permanence  of  their  kingdom  in  the  line  of  David. 

We  find,  moreover,  that  the  original  promise  to  David  is 
to  a  certain  extent  illustrated  by  the  history  of  his  great 
crime.  If  criticism  has  asked  us  to  believe  that  the  fifty- 
first  Psalm  is  no  record  or  relic  of  this  incident,  he  must 
be  a  bold  critic  who  shall  seek  to  persuade  us  that  the 
incident  itself  never  occurred.  There  can  be  no  sort  of 
question  that  we  have  in  the  second  book  of  Samuel  the 
plain  unvarnished  narrative  of  its  occurrence.  But  the 
rebuke  which  is  given  by  Nathan  virtually  assumes  the 

4  2  Sam.  vii.     Cf.  Ps.  cxxxii.  11,  etc. 


IT.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  59 

main  features  of  the  previous  history.  No  rebuke  more 
severe  was  ever  administered  to  a  king,  and  it  was  coupled 
with  denunciations  the  most  terrible ;  and  yet  it  was  none 
other  than  this  same  Nathan  who  had  promised  to  David 
the  perpetual  establishment  of  his  kingdom.  If  we  reject 
the  one  event  as  historic,  we  have  equal  reason  to  reject 
the  other.  Tremendous,  however,  as  the  rebuke  was,  it  did 
not  revoke  the  original  promise  while  it  expressly  recog- 
nised the  authority  by  which  David  reigned.5  We  have  to 
account,  then,  for  the  unflinching  boldness  of  the  prophet, 
for  the  deference  and  submission  with  which  his  message 
was  received,  as  well  as  for  the  deliberate  confidence  with 
which  both  the  promise  and  the  rebuke  were  given.  Can 
these  together  be  resolved  into  the  mere  effects  of  the 
mental  ascendency  over  the  king  which  the  prophet  had 
acquired  ?  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  the  case  of 
the  rebuke  truth  and  justice  were  at  any  rate  on  the  side 
of  Nathan,  and  that  the  denunciations  delivered  were 
verified  in  fact.  Were  these  denunciations  inserted  in 
order  to  add  a  mysterious  import  to  the  events  which 
afterwards  occurred  ?  Was  the  narrative  of  the  events 
framed  in  order  to  suit  the  mysterious  character  of  the 
denunciations  ?  Or  is  the  way  in  which  the  whole  are 
intertwined  and  interwoven  in  the  narrative  but  one  indi- 
cation out  of  many  that  there  are  elements  of  supernatural 
dealing  in  the  entire  transaction,  which  it  is  not  possible 
satisfactorily  to  explain  ?  Does  not  the  conduct  of  the 
prophet  and  the  king  from  first  to  last  show  that,  under- 
stand or  account  for  it  as  we  may,  there  must  have  been 
more  in  the  title  by  which  David  held  his  throne  than  the 
vain  illusions  of  self-deception  on  either  side ;  and  that,  as 
we  are  dealing  with  undoubted  facts,  the  only  theory  which 
will  adequately  resolve  them  is  the  admission  of  the  agency 
of  an  unseen  power  working  in  natural  human  history  in 

5  2  Sam  xii.  7  *eq. 


6o  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

a  manner  highly  exceptional  and  above  nature  ?  In  other 
words,  the  narrative  of  the  foundation  of  David's  kingdom, 
which  is  distinctly  asserted  to  have  been  Divine,  is  of  such 
a  character  that  its  foundation  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
regarded  as  merely  human. 

There  is,  however,  abundant  evidence  to  show  that 
David's  kingdom,  great  as  it  was,  could  only  be  regarded 
as  the  promise  of  one  greater.  The  chief  characteristic  of 
its  foundation  was  its  hope  of  perpetuity  and  its  anticipa- 
tion of  an  endless  future.  Solomon  was  in  some  respects 
a  greater  sovereign  than  David,  and  he  was  enabled  to 
achieve  what  his  father  was  not  permitted  to  commence. 
His  glory,  however,  did  not  last  long,  and  at  his  death  it 
seemed  as  though  the  hopes  that  were  cherished  by  and 
for  David  were  about  to  be  falsified.  The  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes  fell  away  from  that  of  Judah;  but  here  again, 
as  before,  not  without  prophetic  announcements  on  the 
part  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  which  fully  recognised  and 
ratified  all  that  had  been  promised  to  David,  though  at 
the  same  time  they  partially  revoked  and  modified  it.  The 
promise,  which  was  at  the  first  conditional,  is  now  condi- 
tionally and  to  a  certain  extent  repeated  to  Jeroboam,  and 
the  seed  of  David  is  to  le  afflicted,  but  not  for  ever.6  Be- 
hoboam  was  forbidden  by  Shemaiah  to  attempt  to  reduce 
the  alienated  tribes  by  force,  because  their  defection  was 
declared  to  be  from  God.7  The  office  of  the  prophet,  there- 
fore, is  continually  asserting  its  authority  over  successive 
kings,  and  being  acknowledged  by  them ;  and  as  the  broad 
principles  on  which  it  is  discharged  are  uniform,  so  there 
is  no  essential  divergence  in  the  definite  message  delivered. 
The  original  decision  of  Nathan  is  acknowledged,  and  the 
validity  of  David's  title  is  confirmed.  All  this  is  the  more 
difficult  to  account  for  if  we  attempt  to  eviscerate  the 
original  promise  of  its  Divine  element. 

6  1  Kings  xi.  34-39.  7  2  Kings  xii.  22-24. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  6 1 

As,  however,  we  proceed,  we  see  the  original  stability 
of  David's  line  maintaining  itself.  The  condition  implied 
in  all  the  Divine  promises,  and  expressly  named  to  Jero- 
boam, was  not  fulfilled  by  him  any  more  than  it  had  been 
by  Solomon;  and  in  the  second  generation  his  dynasty 
was  overthrown,8  to  be  succeeded  by  others  no  less  tran- 
sient, until  Jehu  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Israel  and  handed 
down  his  sceptre  to  his  descendants  of  the  fourth  genera- 
tion, who,  in  the  person  of  Zachariah,9  were  finally  dis- 
placed, while  the  monarchy  itself  not  long  after  came  to 
an  end.  Henceforth  the  dominion  of  the  two  kingdoms 
reverted  to  the  representative  of  the  house  of  David,  under 
whom  they  were  united  in  the  person  of  Hezekiah,  and  so 
continued  for  about  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  till  the 
time  of  the  great  captivity  under  Nebuchadnezzar. 

For  the  history  of  the  divided  kingdom  of  Israel  we 
are  entirely  indebted  to  the  books  of  Kings,  which  may 
perhaps  be  suspected  of  partiality  in  favour  of  the  kingdom 
of  Judah;  but  to  whatever  extent  this  is  the  case,  there 
are  certain  features  to  be  observed  which  can  hardly  have 
been  misrepresented  from  any  such  bias.  For  example, 
we  find  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  the  development  of  a 
grander  idea  of  the  prophetic  office  than  is  ever  found 
in  Judah,  and  one  which,  in  some  respects,  is  altogether 
original.  The  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha  are  unique  con- 
ceptions in  the  history,  and  their  execution  of  their  office 
is  unique.  It  was,  however,  almost  exclusively  discharged 
in  Israel.  There  is  something  very  remarkable  in  the 
apostate  kingdom  being  thus  highly  favoured;  and  the 
fact  that  the  prophets'  mission,  though  it  was  resisted,  was 
nevertheless  acknowledged  by  the  kings  of  Israel,  may 
surely  be  added  to  the  mass  of  the  evidence  which  tends 
to  show  that  their  mission  was  a  reality. 

The  way,  however,  in  which  dynasty  after  dynasty  is 

8  1  Kings  xv.  28-30.  9  2  Kings  x.  30;  xv.  8-12. 


62  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

set  up  in  Israel,  and  removed  for  rebellion  and  idolatry, 
not  without  prophetic  menaces  and  warnings,  is  also  in  its 
degree  a  confirmation  of  the  authority  on  which  the  pro- 
mise to  David  rested ;  because  our  knowledge  of  both  is 
derived  from  the  same  source,  and  as  the  one  could  not 
have  been  invented  to  make  the  other  more  credible, 
whatever  illustration  either  receives  from  the  other  is  of 
real  and  independent  value.1  For  example,  the  constant 
change  of  dynasty  in  Israel  corresponds  in  fact  with  the 
prophetic  announcement  of  it.  We  cannot  suppose  that 
the  fact  was  arranged  to  suit  the  announcement,  and 
scarcely  less  can  we  imagine  that  the  announcement  was 
recorded  to  embellish  the  fact;  and  yet,  if  not  so,  the 
agreement  of  the  one  with  the  other  is  in  the  highest 
degree  significant,  and  shows  that  the  power  which  was  at 
work  in  Judah  was  not  unknown  in  Israel,  and  because 
not  unknown  in  Israel,  an  idolatrous  and  rival  kingdom, 
is  the  less  likely  to  have  been  unreal  in  Judah.  At  all 
events,  He  who  set  up  and  put  down  kings  in  Israel,  was 
He  who  declared  that  He  had  chosen  the  seed  of  David, 
and  would  establish  his  throne  for  ever.  In  fact,  the 
more  we  examine  the  history  in  detail,  the  more  we  see 
that  it  must  be  torn  piecemeal  and  totally  reconstructed 
before  it  can  be  reduced  to  the  scale  of  ordinary  history, 
and  that,  in  short,  it  cannot  be  so  reduced  without 
destroying  altogether  its  historical  credibility — its  value 
as  a  record. 

It  is,  moreover,  by  no  means  unimportant  to  observe, 
that  after  a  certain  period  the  history  itself  ceases  to  pre- 
sent the  same  features  that  it  formerly  possessed.  There 
is  not  the  same  conspicuous  correspondence  between  pro- 
phetic announcement  and  historic  incident.  There  are 
indications,  not  a  few,  that  the  nation  was  conscious  that 

1  1  Kings  xi.  31  seq.  ;  xiv.  7  seq. ;  xvi.  1-13 ;  xx.  42,  43.    2  Kings  i.  16, 
etc.  etc. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  63 

its  prophetic  glory  had  departed.2  No  attempt  even  is 
made  to  reproduce  the  remarkable  phenomena  of  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles.  Just  as  the  period  of  the  judges 
was  an  era  when  the  prophetic  impulse  was  wholly  in 
abeyance,  though  the  ruling  power  was  developing  itself, 
so  in  the  time  of  the  monarchy  the  king  and  the  prophet 
are  found  side  by  side  in  full  activity ;  but  after  the  close 
of  it  the  office  of  the  king  is  seen  no  more,  and  that  of 
the  prophet  before  long  comes  to  an  end.  All  this  tends 
to  show  that  the  period  of  the  prophetic  development  was 
distinct  and  exceptional  in  the  life  of  the  nation.  It  was 
a  reality,  and  a  reality  that  is  virtually  without  parallel 
elsewhere.  Still  the  records  of  the  nation  leave  this 
feeling  on  the  reader's  mind,  that  high  anticipations,  both 
as  regards  kingly  and  prophetic  power,  have  been  raised 
and  yet  not  wholly  fulfilled.  The  book  of  Malachi  closes 
not  only  without  any  manifestation  of  the  prophet  like 
unto  Moses,  but  with  a  promise  only  held  out  of  the  return 
of  Elijah,  whose  position  and  character,  though  very  great, 
were  at  once  unlike  and  inferior  to  those  of  Moses. 

And  what  is  true  of  the  prophet  is  yet  more  true  of  the 
king.  The  distinct  assurances  held  out  of  a  ruler  on 
David's  throne  were  so  far  from  being  fulfilled  that  their 
very  failure  is  an  evidence  of  their  reality  and  genuineness. 
They  must  have  been  given  on  the  highest  authority, 
because  otherwise  a  natural  jealousy  for  their  credit  and 
their  apparent  agreement  with  fact  would  have  prompted 
the  desire  to  suppress  or  to  modify  them.  But  instead  of 
this  they  remain  with  so  much  of  historical  inconsistency 
as  the  reader  may  be  disposed  to  assign  to  them,  but  at  the 
same  time  with  the  very  vivid  impression  produced  upon 
him  that  there  is  something  wanted  to  complete  them — 
something  in  the  future  for  which  they  still  seem  to  wait. 

8  Cf.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9,  whenever  this  was  written.  Ezra  ii.  63.  Neh.  vii. 
65.  1  Mace.  iv.  46 ;  is.  27 ;  xiv.  41. 


64  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  nearly  so  much  upon  the  literal 
assertions  of  this  or  that  particular  text  or  collection  of 
texts  that  we  dwell,  as  upon  the  general  tenor  of  the 
narrative  looked  at  as  a  whole,  and  upon  the  highly 
exceptional  phenomena  of  the  literature  taken  at  large, 
which  cannot  with  any  degree  of  fairness  be  explained 
away,  and  yet  cannot  be  truly  dealt  with  without  suggesting 
the  very  strong  presumption,  which  accumulated  evidence 
renders  inevitable,  that  other  forces  than  those  merely 
human  were  at  work  in  the  history  of  this  nation,  and 
that  there  are  indications  of  the  unveiling  of  a  will  which 
can  only  be  regarded  as  Divine.  And  this  conclusion  is 
proof  against  everything  but  the  unwarrantable,  because 
unscientific,  d  priori  assumption  that  such  an  idea  is  to  be 
rejected  because  of  its  inherent  and  absolute  impossibility, 
which  must  simply  depend  upon  the  facts  instead  of  being 
allowed  to  sway  them. 

The  result,  then,  to  which  we  are  brought  by  the  survey 
of  Jewish  history  as  a  whole,  is  the  conviction  that  it  is 
singularly  incomplete ;  that,  starting  with  the  definite  and 
distinct  promise  that  all  the  families  of  the  earth  are  to  be 
blessed  in  Abraham,  it  leaves  us  with  no  very  distinct  or 
definite  notion  how  this  has  been  or  is  to  be  accomplished ; 
it  awakens  an  anticipation  which,  to  say  the  least,  it  barely 
satisfies ;  that,  moreover,  this  promise,  clear  as  it  is  in 
terms,  though  dark  in  meaning,  is  not  more  clear  than  the 
promise  subsequently  recorded  of  a  great  prophet  who  shall 
arise,  and  a  king  who  shall  rule  on  the  throne  of  David, 
and  the  perpetuity  which  shall  attend  his  throne — neither 
of  which  promises,  however,  is  adequately  realised  within 
the  limits  of  the  history  itself.  The  most  natural  con- 
clusion, therefore,  is  that  the  entire  history  from  first  to 
last  is  a  delusion ;  it  is  not  worthy  of  our  consideration  or 
regard,  for  its  conspicuous  absurdities  are  its  condemnation. 
But  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  feel,  in  spite  of  ourselves, 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  65 

that  this  conclusion  is  one  which  we  cannot  adopt.  This 
history,  from  first  to  last,  is  more  remarkable  than  any 
other.  Setting  aside  its  supernatural  features,  there  is  no 
question  that  its  broad  and  general  character  is  that  of 
substantial  accuracy  and  truth :  it  is  simple,  concise,  and 
graphic :  it  commands  our  confidence  from  its  obvious 
impartiality.  No  one  can  say  that  the  character  of  Abraham 
or  of  David  is  dealt  with  more  leniently  than  that  of  Saul 
or  Pharaoh.  It  is  impossible  to  read  this  history  and 
pronounce  it  upon  internal  evidence  unworthy  of  our 
attention  or  undeserving  of  our  belief.  But  the  very 
manifest  general  character  of  the  history  in  ordinary 
matters  affords  ground,  at  least  so  far,  for  a  presumption 
in  favour  of  its  credibility  in  others  which  are  not  ordinary. 
We  are  forbidden  to  dismiss  the  supernatural  features  all 
at  once  as  unworthy  of  credit,  on  account  of  the  general 
character  of  the  narrative  which  they  mark.  We  are  con- 
strained either  to  explain  them  or  to  accept  them  unex- 
plained. They  do  not  really  admit  of  any  satisfactorily 
consistent  natural  explanation,  and  therefore  we  must 
accept  them  as  they  are. 

And  this  being  the  case,  the  final  impression  produced 
by  the  history  as  a  whole  is  that  the  promises  contained  in 
it,  and  the  hopes  excited  by  it,  are  in  the  highest  degree 
noteworthy.  And  the  natural  inference  is  that,  so  far  at 
any  rate,  a  substantial  foundation  is  laid  for  any  claims 
which  might  hereafter  be  based  upon  these  promises  and 
hopes.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  there  was  a  primd 
facie  appearance  of  ground  for  the  expectation  that  among 
the  seed  of  Abraham  there  should  arise  a  prophet  and  a 
king,  in  whom  the  kingly  and  prophetic  character  should  be 
amply  realised.  And  it  is  altogether  beyond  the  limits  of 
possibility  that  the  expectation  of  a  prophet  or  a  king,  in 
the  form  in  which  it  appears,  should  have  been  modified  in 
such  a  way  as  to  become  the  groundwork  of  the  claims 

F 


66  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

which  were  afterwards  based  upon  it.  Put  the  composition 
of  the  several  books,  or  of  particular  parts  of  them,  as  late 
as  you  please,  and  their  real  significance  is  in  no  degree 
affected  thereby.  In  their  present  form  they  were  long 
anterior  to  the  first  preaching  of  the  Baptist,  and  yet  in 
that  form  they  supplied  a  strange  and  fitting,  and  yet 
altogether  improbable  and  impossible,  basis  for  the  an- 
nouncement, There  cometh  one  mightier  than  I  after  me,  the 
latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and 
unloose?  It  was  the  spontaneous  development  of  events, 
and  in  no  sense  the  will  of  man,  which  brought  about  this 
adaptation.  The  character  of  John  the  Baptist  is  one  of 
the  greatest  in  Scripture,  but  he  proclaimed  the  advent  of 
one  greater  than  himself.  If  that  greater  one  should  be  a 
prophet  or  a  king,  the  old  promises  about  the  king  and  the 
prophet  would,  to  say  the  least,  have  a  wonderful  light 
thrown  upon  them.  They  would  at  once  acquire  a  signifi- 
cance they  never  possessed  before,  and  yet  the  capability 
of  this  significance  had  been  there  for  ages.  It  was  not 
created  by  John.  And  whether  or  not  John's  announcement 
vas  verified,  the  ground  upon  which  it  was  made  was  valid, 
for  Moses  had  spoken  of  a  prophet  like  unto  himself,  and 
Samuel  had  anointed  David  in  the  room  of  Saul  to  sit 
upon  the  throne  of  Israel,  and  Nathan  had  declared  that 
his  house  and  kingdom  should  be  established  for  ever. 
Whether  or  not  these  promises  were  destined  to  ultimate 
failure  or  fulfilment,  it  is  undeniable  that  there  they  were, 
and  there  for  ages  they  had  existed. 

There  is  yet  one  other  feature  in  which  the  history  of 
Israel  presents  a  strong  contrast  to  that  of  all  other  nations. 
It  was  expressly  declared  in  the  law  that  Israel  should  be 
a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation  ;4  and  in  no  respect 
are  this  people  more  strongly  marked  than  in  their  priestly 
and  sacrificial  character.  The  directions  of  the  Mosaic 

8  St.  Mark  i.  7.  4  Exod.  xix.  6. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  67 

ritual  are  minute  and  elaborate.  From  the  commencement 
to  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament,  sacrifice  holds  a  con- 
spicuous and  prominent  place.  Aaron  and  his  sons,  under 
the  legal  system,  are  expressly  set  apart  to  minister  in  the 
priest's  office.  The  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood 
is  made  with  Phinehas,  the  grandson  of  Aaron.  And  yet  in 
the  time  of  Samuel  we  find  that  the  priesthood  has  passed 
out  of  the  line  of  Eleazar  into  that  of  Ithamar  without 
any  discoverable  reason.5  In  the  time  of  David  it  is  found 
distributed  in  both  lines.  (1  Chron.  xxiv.  3.)  At  the  time 
of  the  captivity,  and  after  the  return,  it  is  still  in  the  line 
of  Eleazar,  and  appears  to  have  continued  so.  During  the 
historical  times,  or  at  least  during  the  period  of  the 
monarchy,  the  high -priest's  office  was,  comparatively 
speaking,  subordinate.  After  the  captivity  and  later  he 
became  the  recognised  head  of  the  nation,  as  in  a  kingdom 
of  priests  he  would  always  have  a  tendency  to  become ; 
and  yet  from  first  to  last  there  is  no  one  priest  who  stands 
out  very  prominently  as  the  model  and  pattern  of  priest- 
hood, while  the  entire  sacrificial  system  must  have  come  to 
an  end  with  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  polity. 

Had  all  this  elaborate  scheme  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  of 
priests  and  sacrifices,  existed  for  no  purpose  whatever,  or 
was  there  a  further  meaning  in  its  very  existence  ?  because 
there  is  no  part  of  the  Jewish  constitution  which  can  lay 
anything  like  the  claim  to  Divine  ordinance  and  prescrip- 
tion that  the  furniture  and  services  of  the  tabernacle  and 
the  functions  of  the  priesthood  can  lay.  These  were  all 
ostensibly  the  subject  of  express  Divine  injunctions,  and  if 
the  injunctions  were  in  any  sense  Divine  they  shed  a  light 
upon  the  whole  theory  of  sacrifice  as  it  existed  also  in  other 

5  This  alone  is  surely  an  indication  that  the  promise  to  Phinehas  must 
have  heen  either  contemporaneous  with  him  or  subsequent  to  the  captivity; 
but  the  former  is  more  probable  because  of  the  manifest  violation  of  the 
promise  in  the  time  of  Samuel. 


68  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

nations;  but  if  they  were  not — if  there  was  no  positive 
and  external  authority  for  them,  if  they  were  based  upon 
imposture  and  self-deception — then  they  not  only  become 
inexplicable  in  themselves,  but  the  prevalence  and  univer- 
sality of  sacrifice  in  the  world  at  large,  as  well  as  the  very 
existence  of  the  theory  of  sacrifice,  is  a  phenomenon  that 
we  cannot  account  for.  The  origin  of  the  institution  of 
sacrifice  is  indeed  lost  in  obscurity,  but  a  certain  amount 
of  light  is  thrown  upon  its  existence  if  in  any  case  it  was 
sanctioned  or  adopted  by  Divine  authority  and  precept — 
a  light  which  otherwise  fails  us  altogether.  And  certainly, 
if  such  a  sanction  is  anywhere  to  be  discovered,  we  must 
look  for  it  in  the  extant  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews;  but 
even  if  we  acknowledge  its  existence  here,  these  writings 
themselves  fail  to  give  us  not  only  the  full  meaning  of  the 
idea,  but  also  the  complete  development  and  realisation  of 
the  idea  in  history.  There  may  never  have  been  any  such 
realisation  at  all ;  but  if  there  was  the  only  person  in  whom 
we  can  hope  to  find  it  is  Christ. 

In  other  words,  the  sacerdotal  and  sacrificial  system  of 
the  Jews,  as  it  is  expressed  in  their  extant  sacred  writings, 
no  matter  when  they  were  written,  taken  in  its  relation  to 
the  corresponding  systems  of  other  nations,  necessarily  and 
naturally  leads  us  to  expect  some  solution  of  it  which  shall 
satisfactorily  account  for  its  existence ;  but  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  give  any  such  account  by  searching  the  records  of 
history  in  any  nation  whatever.  Unless  the  very  idea  of 
sacrifice  from  first  to  last  was  a  mistake,  unless  its  essential 
principle  was  a  false  one,  it  seems  to  point  us  not  only  to 
a  great  moral  truth,  but  also  to  a  definite  historic  exhibition 
and  illustration  of  the  truth,  or  at  least  to  a  turning-point 
in  history,  when  the  human  mind,  which  before  had  uni- 
versally acquiesced  in  sacrifice,  should  at  once  and  univer- 
sally repudiate  the  repetition  of  the  outward  form,  and  rest 
content  with  the  realisation  of  the  inward  truth  expressed 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  69 

by  it.  Such  a  turning-point  would  really  present  the 
greatest  instance  of  moral  and  mental  revolution  which  it 
is  possible  to  conceive.  And  such  a  turning-point  was  in 
fact  presented  by  the  effects  and  consequences  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  The  repudiation  of  animal  sacrifice  was  the 
immediate  result  of  the  preaching  of  that  death.  Nothing 
else  has  ever  operated  in  the  same  way.  Nothing  else  can 
in  this  respect  come  into  competition  for  one  moment  with 
Christ's  death.  The  publication  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  no  matter  who  wrote  it,  was  the  evidence  and 
the  consequence  of  the  mightiest  revolution  which  the 
human  mind  can  undergo  or  has  ever  undergone.  Whether 
or  not  Jewish  sacrifice  led  up  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  was  intended  to  prepare  for  its  central  fact,  certain  it 
is  that  the  central  fact  of  that  epistle  was  the  abolition  of 
Jewish  sacrifice,  and  gave  the  signal  for  a  total  change  of 
mind  upon  the  subject.  A  revolution  so  mighty  as  the 
rejection  of  the  formal  expression  of  sacrifice,  in  favour  of 
its  moral  signification  and  inward  essence,  is  not  so  likely 
to  have  been  occasioned  by  anything  as  by  an  especially 
high  illustration  of  the  moral  truth  of  sacrifice. 

We  may  declare  emphatically  that  no  historic  event 
was  adequate  to  produce  this  revolution  but  one,  as  we 
may  likewise  affirm  that  there  is  no  other  event  which  in 
this  respect  pretends  to  rival  it.  There  is  a  direct  relation 
of  cause  and  effect  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the 
discontinuance  of  sacrifice,  which  is  undeniable,  because 
obvious,  and  which  can  be  paralleled  by  nothing  else  in 
history.  We  may  deny  that  the  existence  of  sacrifice 
pointed  prophetically  and  with  Divine  authority  to  the 
historic  occurrence  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  it  is  impossible 
to  affirm  that  the  death  of  Christ  did  not  exhibit  and 
illustrate,  as  nothing  else  ever  did,  the  full  meaning  and 
the  Divine  wisdom  of  the  law  of  sacrifice. 

And  thus  it  is  that  we  find  the  promise  of  a  Christ  in 


7O  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  [LECT. 

Jewish  history.  We  find  in  that  history  the  foundation 
and  the  germ  of  all  that  was  afterwards  claimed  for  Christ 
and  advanced  in  His  name.  We  find  there  ages  before  He 
came  or  any  such  claims  were  ever  advanced,  the  distinct 
promise  of  a  seed  in  which  the  nations  should  be  blessed. 
However  we  interpret  that  promise,  whether  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham  or  of  a  certain  individual  of  his  family,  whether 
we  regard  him  or  his  family,  or  a  certain  individual  of  his 
family,  as  the  channel  or  as  the  standard  of  blessing,  it  is 
equally  true  when  applied  to  Christ.  He  proclaimed  Him- 
self, and  was  proclaimed,  as  the  fountain  of  life  and  the 
one  source  of  blessing  to  mankind. 

We  find  there  the  distinct  promise  of  a  great  prophet, 
who  should  stand  like  Moses  between  God  and  man.  In 
the  whole  cycle  of  history  there  is  no  name  but  one  on 
behalf  of  which  any  such  claim  can  be  advanced.  Christ 
may  not  have  been  that  great  prophet,  but  at  least  there 
was  none  other  greater  than  He ;  and  in  that  case  the  pro- 
mise which  has  existed  for  three  thousand  years,  and  is 
still  a  promise,  has  signally  failed,  and  though  history  has 
revealed  and  confirmed  its  truth,  it  must  be  pronounced 
a  lie. 

But  we  find  there  also  the  distinct  promise  of  a  king 
whose  throne  is  to  be  established  for  ever ;  and  yet  before 
many  centuries  the  kingdom  of  David  is  overthrown,  and 
in  the  time  of  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate  we  hear  the 
people  of  David  crying  aloud,  We  have  no  king  but  Ccesar ; 6 
while  one  who  claimed  descent  from  the  son  of  Jesse  was 
led  away  to  be  crucified,  and  the  superscription  was  written 
over  Him,  containing  the  indictment  upon  which  He  suf- 
fered, This  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of  the  Jews : 7  and 
before  He  was  born,  we  are  told  that  it  had  been  said — 
The  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father 

6  St.  Johnxix.  15. 

7  St.  John  xix.  19 ;  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  37. 


ii.]  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.  71 

David  ;  and  Tie  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever, 
and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  ~be  no  end. 8 

And,  lastly,  we  find  there  from  beginning  to  end  the 
deep  impress  of  a  sacrificial  system,  which  must  have  been 
unmeaning  and  self-imposed,  and  is  consequently  an  un- 
explained phenomenon  in  history,  if  it  did  not  lead  upward 
and  point  onward  to  the  perfect  priesthood  and  sacrifice  of 
one  who  should  be  called  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  but 
after  the  power  of  an  endless  life. 9 

8  St.  Luke  i.  32,  33.  9  Heb.  vii.  11,  16. 


LECTURE  III. 

THE   CHRIST  OF  THE  PSALMS. 


WHAT  is  there  necessary  for  man  to  know  which  the  Psalms  are  not  able 
to  teach?  They  are  to  beginners  an  easy  and  familiar  introduction,  a 
mighty  augmentation  of  all  virtue  and  knowledge  in  such  as  are  entered 
before,  a  strong  confirmation  to  the  most  perfect  among  others.  Heroical 
magnanimity,  exquisite  justice,  grave  moderation,  exact  wisdom,  repent- 
ance unfeigned,  unwearied  patience,  the  mysteries  of  God,  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  the  terrors  of  wrath,  the  comforts  of  grace,  the  works  of  Pro- 
vidence over  this  world,  and  the  promised  joys  of  that  world  which  is  to 
come,  all  good  necessarily  to  be  either  known,  or  done,  or  had,  this  one 
celestial  fountain  yieldeth. — Hooker. 


LECTURE  III. 

As  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee.  .  .  .  Wherefore  he  saith  also  in  another  Psalm, 
Thou  shalt  not  suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption. 

ACTS  xiii.  33,  35. 

WE  have  no  reasonable  cause  to  doubt  that  St.  Paul 
in  his  speech  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  made  reference 
to  these  two  Psalms,  and  applied  them  to  Jesus  Christ, 
But  whether  or  not  he  did,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  the 
writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  believed  in  the  fitness 
of  such  an  application,  and  desired  his  readers  also  to  be- 
lieve in  it.  If  proof,  therefore,  were  wanting,  we  have  it 
here,  as  we  have  it  abundantly  elsewhere,  that  the  early 
Church  was  accustomed  to  find  in  the  Psalms  of  David 
much  that  it  understood  to  be  spoken  prophetically  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

But  my  object  now  is  not  to  defend  or  establish  the 
truth  of  any  such  interpretation,  but  rather  to  trace  in  the 
Psalms  the  growth  and  development  of  those  ideas  which 
subsequently  contributed  as  a  matter  of  fact  to  supply  the 
basis  for  the  Messianic  conception. 

We  have  seen  already  that  the  pattern  or  scheme  upon 
which  the  known  history  of  the  Jewish  nation  developed 
itself  was  one  which  was  eminently  adapted  to  sustain,  if 
it  did  not  originate,  the  after-growth  of  the  national  ex- 
pectation, that  an  illustrious  Person  would  arise.  Kingly, 
priestly,  national,  and  human,  that  Person  was  to  be,  and 
blessing  was  to  be  associated  with  His  name  and  office — 


76  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

so  much,  at  least,  the  people  might  have  been  justified  in 
expecting  from  the  records  of  their  history.  Let  us  in- 
quire now  what  evidence  the  Psalms  afford  of  the  early 
rise  of  such  an  expectation,  and  how  far  they  contributed 
to  its  growth. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  in  the  matter  of  date  there 
are  productions  in  the  book  of  Psalms  which  range  over  a 
period  of  a  thousand  years.  There  are  some,  perhaps,  as 
early  as  the  Exodus,  and  there  are  others  as  late  as  the 
return  from  captivity.  We  do  not  dwell,  however,  so 
much  upon  the  antiquity  of  particular  Psalms,  or  of  the 
evidence  they  may  contain,  as  upon  the  testimony  sup- 
plied by  this  branch  of  the  national  literature,  which  may 
be  called  its  poetry  or  hymnology.  Taking  the  Psalms,  as 
represented  at  least  by  the  works  of  David,  they  may  be 
placed  as  a  whole  anterior  to  prophecy  as  a  whole,  and 
consequently  may  be  examined  first.  They  stand,  more- 
over, in  the  position  of  national  songs  or  odes,  and  therefore 
have  less  of  that  which  characterises  the  works  of  an  in- 
dividual author  than  the  writings  of  the  several  prophets. 
They  may  be  taken,  more  or  less,  as  fairly  representing 
the  spontaneous  expression  of  national  sentiment.  What, 
then,  is  their  evidence  as  to  the  nature  of  this  sentiment  ? 

The  Psalms  open  with  the  description  of  an  ideally 
righteous  man;  a  description  which  is  repeated  in  the 
15th  and  24th  Psalms,  becomes  the  expression  of  a  strong 
personal  resolve  in  the  101st,  and  is  expanded  and  enlarged 
upon  in  the  112th  Psalm.  Two  of  these  Psalms,  the  first 
and  last,  have  no  inscription;  the  others  are  ascribed  to 
David.  But  it  matters  not  who  wrote  them :  they  are  a 
witness  to  a  certain  longing  after  an  ideal  standard  of 
humanity,  of  which  the  natural  tendency  would  be  to 
reproduce  itself  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  The  fact  that 
they  are  couched  in  merely  general  language,  and  applied 
to  the  righteous  generally,  is  no  proof  that  they  had  not 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  77 

their  share  in  tending  to  produce  and  deepen  the  impression 
that  the  great  want  of  humanity  was  a  righteous  man,  and 
that  the  mission  of  Israel  would  be  unfulfilled  till  the 
ideal  of  righteousness  had  been  produced.  In  proportion, 
therefore,  as  the  people  could  grasp  the  promise  of  blessing 
for  the  nations  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  they  would  learn 
from  the  teaching  of  these  and  similar  Psalms  that  any 
one  who  claimed  to  fulfil  that  promise  must  himself  be 
righteous  to  the  utmost  limit  of  their  standard,  of  which 
David  himself  had  but  too  conspicuously  fallen  short. 

True,  however,  as  this  may  be,  the  notion  is  too  vague 
to  be  construed  into  any  evidence  of  what  was  actually 
understood.  Nor  is  it  so  advanced.  "We  can  only  perceive 
here  an  indication  of  the  kind  of  soil  in  which  the  foun- 
dation was  laid  for  that  superstructure  which  was  afterwards 
to  be  reared,  and  we  can  determine  how  far  it  was  favourable 
or  otherwise — how  far  the  foundation  itself  was  solid  and 
substantial,  or  insecure  and  sandy. 

It  may  be  well,  however,  to  notice  the  more  general 
characteristics  of  the  Psalms  first,  before  passing  on  to 
those  which  are  special  and  personal.  We  cannot  proceed 
far  without  discovering  that  the  Psalms  are  the  expression 
of  real  and  continual  trouble.  The  writer  is  constantly 
exposed  to  persecution.  The  wicked  are  ever  oppressing 
and  deriding  him,  and  not  seldom  this  appears  to  be  on 
account  of  his  integrity.  They  also  that  render  evil  for 
good  are  mine  adversaries ;  because  I  follow  the  thing  that 
good  is,1  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  sample  of  a  large  portion 
of  the  Psalms.  The  writer  appears  to  be  set  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  conflict  between  good  and  evil,  and  to  bear  in 
himself  the  brunt  of  it.  Not  seldom  this  is  expressed  in 
terms  which  must  have  transcended  not  only  the  special 
circumstances  in  which  David  was  placed,  but  those  also 
which  we  can  conceive  to  have  been  literally  true  of  any 

1  Psalm  xxxviii.  20. 


78  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

one;  and  yet  they  have  an  intense  reality.  If  the  ex- 
pressions are  hyperbolical,  we  still  feel  that  they  are  true. 
Though  the  language  of  the  22 d  Psalm  cannot  have  been 
warranted  by  the  exigencies  of  David's  case,  it  is  too  real 
and  vivid  not  to  be  true;  and  in  whatever  sense  it  was 
true,  there  must  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  a  felt 
reality  answering  to  its  truth.  What  this  was  we  may 
perhaps  find  it  difficult  to  determine ;  but  the  language  is 
its  own  witness,  and  there  is  only  one  vision,  ideal  or 
actual,  in  all  history  which  can  claim  to  have  fulfilled  it. 
We  may  certainly  affirm  of  the  Psalms  that  they  first  gave 
expression  to  this  element  of  ideal  suffering,  and  added 
it  to  those,  whatever  they  were,  which  were  already  in 
existence. 

Not  more  conspicuous,  however,  than  the  daring  character 
of  the  language  used,  and  its  literal  inapplicability  to  the 
writer's  circumstances,  is  the  manner  in  which  the  suffering 
is  depicted  as  the  writer's  own.  He  everywhere  identifies 
himself  with  the  person  suffering.  So  that  the  two  oppo- 
site statements  may  be  maintained  with  equal  truth, 
because  the  maintenance  of  both  will  alone  express  the 
whole  truth,  that  no  writer  whoever  he  was  can  have 
spoken  of  that  which  was  literally  verified  in  himself,  and 
yet  that  each  several  writer,  if  there  were  more  than  one, 
was  by  sympathetic  appreciation  a  partaker  of  the  suffer- 
ings he  so  vividly  described. 

It  was  the  office,  then,  of  that  portion  of  Jewish  litera- 
ture known  as  the  Psalms  to  bring  out  in  humanity,  and  to 
give  expression  to,  the  conception  of  righteous  manhood, 
the  experience  of  integrity  borne  down  by  oppression,  the 
being  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  the  notion  of 
being  made  perfect  through  suffering,  as  well  as  the  picture 
of  an  ideal  degree  of  suffering,  and  consequently  of  an 
ideal  sufferer,  which  men  must  have  learnt  to  feel,  the 
more  they  pondered  it,  could  only  wait  for  its  complete 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  79 

fulfilment,  if  it  was  to  be  fulfilled.  And  inasmuch  as  the 
expression  of  this  from  first  to  last  was  everywhere  cast  in 
the  form  of  personal  experience,  it  became  more  and  more 
impossible  that  the  various  characteristics  should  not  group 
themselves  round  a  person,  and  combine  to  form  a  whole, 
which,  as  it  grew  by  constant  but  gradual  accretion,  was 
found  to  be  not  altogether  in  the  likeness  of  David,  or  of 
any  other  historic  character  to  whom  it  might  be  referred. 
Another  prominent  feature  which  is  seen  to  characterise 
the  Psalms  to  even  a  greater  degree  than  any  other  portion 
of  the  Old  Testament,  is  the  consciousness  of  Divine  election, 
and  of  consequent  trust  in  God,  which  they  express.  This 
is  everywhere  not  the  result  of  personal  devotion  to  the 
Most  High,  but  of  the  going  forth  of  special  regard  on  the 
part  of  God  towards  him  who  has  been  assured  of  it. 
There  is  nothing  more  conspicuous  than  this  in  the  Psalms 
as  a  whole.  So  deep  and  abiding  is  this  consciousness, 
that  the  sense  even  of  intense  personal  guilt  cannot  shake 
it.  The  usurping  presence  of  sin  has  only  the  effect  of 
making  the  Psalmist  cleave  with  the  greater  earnestness  to 
God.  He  feels  that  the  honour  of  God  will  be  compromised 
if  one  who  has  trusted  Him  so  unreservedly  is  left  to 
perish.  And  so,  with  entire  abandonment  of  soul,  he 
throws  himself  upon  the  Lord.  Preserve  thou  my  soul;  for 
I  am  holy :  my  God,  save  thy  servant  that  putteth  his  trust 
in  thee.2  He  never  has  any  doubt  that  his  cause  is  the 
cause  of  God.  The  Lord  is  on  my  side  ;  I  will  not  fear : 
what  can  man  do  unto  me  ? 8  At  the  same  time  he  feels 
that  this  exceptional  nearness  to  the  Divine  presence  has 
laid  him  under  an  obligation  to  exceptional  righteousness; 
and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this  twofold  consciousness 
of  the  Divine  election,  and  of  the  consequent  obligation  to 
personal  righteousness,  is  the  unique  characteristic  of  this 
ancient  literature,  and  pre-eminently  of  the  Psalms.  We 

2  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  2.  3  Psalm  cxviii.  6. 


8o  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

have  nowhere,  as  we  have  here,  the  picture  of  a  man  bowed 
down  with  affliction  and  sorrow  of  every  kind,  yet  not 
losing  his  confidence  in  God,  nor  his  conviction  of  God's 
righteousness  ;  not  charging  God  with  injustice  on  account 
of  what  He  has  laid  upon  him,  but  clinging  to  the  right- 
eousness of  God,  not  only  as  the  ground  of  his  own  hope 
for  brighter  times,  but  as  the  means  of  raising  him  out 
of  that  personal  sin  which  he  feels  to  be  so  near  to  him. 
Verily,  this  portraiture  is  in  itself  Divine. 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  the  union  of  these  several 
elements  in  the  Psalms,  and  their  combination  in  one  and 
the  same  person — because  if  the  writers  were  various  their 
experience  was  uniform — shows  that  the  election  of  God 
secures  no  immunity  from  suffering,  that  the  righteous  man 
is  often  exposed  to  the  greatest  trials,  and  that  trial  and 
suffering  are  designed  to  elicit  faith  in  God,  and  give  no 
occasion  in  themselves  to  distrut  His  goodness.  All  this 
was  a  distinct  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  God's  dealings, 
and  was  itself  a  preparation  for  the  advent  of  One  who 
should  be  made  perfect  through  suffering,  and  should  prove 
Himself  the  righteous  man  by  the  ignominy  of  unmerited 
death  He  was  content  to  endure. 

Not  less  remarkable  than  the  sense  of  personal  election 
expressed  in  so  many  of  the  Psalms  is  the  conviction  of 
national  election  which  continually  pervades  them.  This 
is  but  another  form  of  the  ancient  belief  expressed  in  the 
promise  to  Abraham :  In  tkee  shall  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  le  blessed.  The  ultimate  confession  of  the  psalmist 
is,  He  hath  not  dealt  so  with  any  nation;*  but  it  is  one 
which  has  frequently  been  anticipated  in  various  ways. 
And  yet,  in  spite  of  the  intense  patriotism  and  strong 
national  sentiment  that  characterises  the  Psalms,  there  are 
no  compositions  of  the  Old  Testament  so  universal  in  their 
scope,  so  world-wide  in  their  human  sympathy,  or  that 

4  Psalm  cxlvii.  20. 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  8 1 

express  so  deep  a  conviction  of  the  future  that  is  reserved 
for  Israel.  The  assertion  is  distinct  and  emphatic  that  the 
God  of  Jacob  is  the  God  of  the  universe,  and  the  ultimate 
triumph  of  His  cause  is  certain.  All  nations  whom  thou 
hast  made  shall  come  and  worship  before  thee,  0  Lord,  and 
shall  glorify  thy  name;  for  thou  art  great  and  doest  wondrous 
things :  thou  art  God  alone.5  To  say  the  least,  it  is  very 
remarkable  that  at  a  time  so  early  a  nation  so  obscure 
should  have  been  so  confident  of  the  relation  in  which  it 
stood  to  God,  and  have  seen  so  clearly  that  the  faith  with 
which  it  was  entrusted  was  destined  to  become  the  faith  of 
the  whole  world,  even  as  it  is  now  recognised  by  the  most 
civilised  portions  of  mankind.  If  it  were  possible  for  such 
convictions  to  be  justified  by  any  result,  one  might  plead 
that  the  known  verdict  of  history  had  certainly  justified 
these. 

But  then  it  is  also  manifest  that  the  election  of  God, 
which  is  felt  to  be  the  distinguishing  glory  of  the  nation, 
is  not,  so  to  say,  distributed  equally  over  the  entire  mass, 
but  is  gathered  up  and  concentrated  in  a  single  line  and 
even  in  a  single  person.  Whatever  be  the  origin  of  such 
Psalms  as  the  78th,  the  89th,  and  the  132d,  there  can  be 
no  question  of  the  prominence  they  assign  to  David  ;  and 
none  of  them,  be  it  observed,  is  ascribed  to  him ;  indeed, 
it  is  not  improbable  that  they  are  all  later  than  his  time. 
So  far,  therefore,  they  may  be  taken  as  expressing  the 
popular  opinion  regarding  him,  and  the  future  in  store, 
for  his  line.  And  yet  it  appears  in  the  two  last  of  these 
Psalms  that  the  hope  is  clung  to  with  the  greater  tenacity, 
because  the  prospect  of  its  fulfilment  seems  to  have  failed. 
For  this  reason,  therefore,  we  cannot  doubt  the  reality  of 
the  original  hope,  nor  of  the  ground  on  which  it  was 
supposed  to  rest.  Nor  is  there  any  counter-evidence  dedu- 
cible  from  other  Psalms  which  might  lead  us  to  question 

5  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  9,  10. 
G 


82  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

this.  God's  election  of  Israel,  then,  is  clearly  seen  to  be 
summed  up  in  David  and  his  house.  On  the  evidence  of 
the  Psalms,  there  can  be  no  question  that  he  is  the  inheritor 
of  whatever  promises  were  made  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and 
to  Jacob.  If  Israel  as  a  nation  inherited  the  promises 
made  unto  the  fathers,  then  David,  as  the  representative  of 
the  line  of  Judah,  contained  in  himself  whatever  belonged 
to  his  nation.  He  and  his  family,  at  the  time  when  these 
Psalms  were  written,  were  regarded  as  the  most  prominent 
possessors  of  whatever  had  been  promised  to  the  first 
fathers  of  the  nation,  or  was  believed  to  have  been  promised 
t;o  them. 

And  it  is  further  evident  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the 
belief  in  the  promise  to  the  fathers  must  have  preceded 
the  belief  in  any  promise  to  David;  because,  otherwise, 
the  effect  of  the  promise  to  him  would  have  been  weakened 
by  the  subsequent  invention  of  any  wider  promise  which 
should  equally  include  the  entire  mass  of  the  nation. 

We  see,  therefore,  on  the  unquestionable  evidence  of 
the  Psalms,  that  at  or  after  the  time  of  David,  for  it 
matters  not,  there  was  understood  to  be  a  repetition  of 
Divine  promises  to  him  and  his  seed — a  narrowing  in  of 
the  channel  of  blessing  originally  promised  to  the  nation 
at  large,  a  concentration  and  limitation  of  it  in  his  par- 
ticular line. 

We  may  say,  indeed,  that  the  two  promises  are  not 
identical,  that  they  are  distinct  and  independent:  that 
may  or  may  not  be  so :  the  one  is  general  the  other  is 
special ;  and  we  have  to  account  as  a  literary  phenomenon 
for  their  existence  in  the  Jewish  literature,  and  for  their 
existence  in  this  particular  form;  and  we  cannot  deny 
that  at  no  period,  say  between  the  captivity  and  the  era 
of  the  Maccabees,  would  it  have  been  possible  to  create 
the  record  of  these  two  promises  and  the  independent  evi- 
dence which  exists,  so  that  their  occurrence  and  their 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  83 

peculiar  features  should  be  less  significant  than  they  are 
at  present. 

That  is  to  say,  up  to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  and 
we  need  not  go  later,  no  man  could  have  foreseen  that 
such  a  combination  of  literary  phenomena  as  are  presented 
in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
Psalms  would  have  been  capable  of  supplying  the  ground- 
work for  that  broad  and  general  interpretation  of  them  to 
which  any  acceptance  of  the  facts  of  Christianity,  or  of 
the  ordinary  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church,  must  of 
necessity  shut  us  up.  So  far  then,  and  no  farther,  as  these 
phenomena  lend  themselves  to  the  interpretation  which 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  Christian 
Church  generally  have  passed  upon  them,  it  cannot  be 
the  result  of  human  foresight  or  design,  but  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  matter  of  simple  accident  if  its  Divine  signifi- 
cance is  rejected.  We  maintain,  however,  that  the  way  in 
which  these  various  phenomena  gradually  prepared  them- 
selves, if  we  may  so  say,  for  the  reception  of  the  burden 
which  was  afterwards  to  be  laid  upon  them,  is  far  too  sig- 
nificant to  be  reputed  as  the  work  of  chance,  and  supplies, 
indeed,  the  strongest  possible  moral  evidence  of  design. 

If,  however,  we  can  see  in  the  Psalms,  as  a  whole,  a 
wonderful  anticipation  and  assertion  of  those  particular 
spiritual  truths  which  are  commonly  regarded  as  more  or 
less  characteristic  of  Christianity ;  and  if,  looked  at  merely 
in  this  light,  they  supply  the  outline  of  that  character  of 
combined  suffering  and  majesty,  the  subject  at  once  of 
oppression,  deliverance,  and  triumph,  which  was  afterwards 
exhibited  in  full  by  Christ;  we  must  not  forget  that  in 
many  other  instances  they  furnish  a  yet  higher  evidence 
of  their  purpose  as  landmarks  along  the  ages  of  a  distant 
past  to  point  us  onwards  to  Him. 

It  is  manifest  that  in  this  way  they  were  originally 
understood  and  appealed  to.  But  then  such  a  use  of 


84  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

them  implies  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  intention 
which  they  served,  an  intention  which  we  would  rather 
indicate  than  assume.  Certain  it  is  that  the  special  Mes- 
sianic characteristics  of  the  Psalms,  if  such  there  are,  as- 
sume altogether  a  different  aspect  if  taken  in  connection 
with  other  features  which  are  patent  and  undeniable,  from 
that  which  they  have  when  looked  at  by  themselves,  and 
charged  with  the  responsibility  of  sustaining  the  entire 
weight  of  the  argument  to  be  based  upon  them. 

The  very  fact,  then,  that  certain  Psalms  have  been 
termed  Messianic,  while  many  others  have  never  been  so 
designated,  is  evidence  in  some  degree  of  an  essential  dif- 
ference between  them.  It  proves,  at  least,  that  there  are 
many  Psalms  on  account  of  which  no  such  claim  has  or' 
can  be  advanced;  while  the  zeal  with  which  the  special 
character  of  the  others  has  been  attacked  and  defended 
may  seem  to  show  that  there  is  at  any  rate  a  primd  facie 
appearance  of  some  marked  difference  in  them.  Is  it 
possible  to  determine  wherein  this  difference  consists  ? 

The  Psalms  that  have  commonly  been  regarded  as 
Messianic  are  some  ten  or  twelve.  The  second  Psalm 
depicts  the  dignity  and  permanence  of  the  throne  of  Zion. 
The  person  sitting  upon  that  throne  declares,  The  Lord 
hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee.  Upon  His  request  the  heathen  are  promised 
Him  for  His  possession.  Kings  are  to  pay  Him  homage, 
and  all  that  trust  in  or  take  refuge  with  Him  are  pro- 
nounced blessed.  The  writer's  idea  then  clearly  was  that 
Zion  was  to  be  the  centre  of  universal  sovereignty.  The 
person  who  rules  or  is  to  rule  there  is  called  the  Anointed 
or  the  Messiah  of  the  Lord,  a  term  which  was  certainly 
applied  to  Saul  and  to  David,  but  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  used  in  the  same  way  of  any  later  king.6  There  is 

6  The  only  exception  is  Lam.  iv.  20,  which  probably  refers  to  the  king ; 
other  kings  are  said  to  have  been  anointed  (1  Kings  i.  34;  xix.  15; 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  85 

abundant  evidence,  then,  to  show  that  David  was  regarded 
in  some  special  sense  as  the  anointed  of  the  Lord ;  and  in 
view  of  this  fact  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  Psalm 
has  primary  reference  to  David  himself  than  to  any  other 
monarch.  But  if  this  be  so  it  is  clear  that  he  speaks  of 
himself,  or  the  writer  speaks  of  him,  as  he  has  nowhere 
else  been  spoken  of  before.  A  new  element,  therefore, 
was  added  by  this  poem  to  the  existing  conception  of 
David's  throne ;  or,  supposing  the  conception  existed 
before,  it  was  here  for  the  first  time  expressed.  It  is 
quite  obvious,  however,  that  at  no  period  of  David's 
history  was  there  any  prospect  of  such  a  development  of 
his  kingdom  as  would  fit  in  at  all  appropriately  with  the 
language  used.  Making  the  fullest  allowance  for  hyper- 
bole, there  still  seems  to  be  an  ideal  before  the  writer's 
mind,  of  which  the  real  and  actual  must  have  fallen  short. 
And  yet  this  ideal  was  embodied  for  ever  in  the  form  he 
had  given  to  it,  and  supplied  for  his  own  and  for  all  sub- 
sequent generations  a  standard  by  which  the  actual  might 
be  measured.  Henceforth  a  glory  was  added  to  the  throne 
of  Zion  which,  if  it  was  never  fulfilled,  and  in  proportion 
as  it  lacked  fulfilment,  would  tend  to  stimulate  the  hope 
that  it  might  be.  We  may  truly  say  that  a  want  which 
had  never  been  felt  before  had  been  created  by  the  pro- 
duction of  this  second  Psalm. 

And  as  the  glory  of  the  throne  was  directly  connected 
with  the  term  Anointed  of  the  Lord,  which  the  national 
historic  records  do  not  ascribe  to  any  king  later  than 
David,  it  is  probable  that  any  longing  which  existed  for 
an  ideal  sovereign  would  be  associated  likewise  with  the 
hope  of  one  who  should  pre-eminently  bear  that  title. 
This,  however,  will  appear  more  fully  as  we  proceed.7 

2  Kings  ix.  3,  6,  12,  etc.),  but  are  not  called  The  Lord's  anointed.     Cyrus, 
however,  is  so  called.  (Isa.  xlv.  1.) 
7  See,  for  example,  Lecture  iv. 


86  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

The  eighth  Psalm  has  reference  to  the  Mosaic  narrative 
of  the  original  constitution  of  man,  and  is  quoted  by  our 
Lord  in  connection  with  an  incident  in  His  own  career,  as 
well  as  by  St.  Paul  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ; 8 
but  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  seem  to  add  greatly  to  the 
definiteness  of  the  Messianic  idea  in  its  earlier  develop- 
ment we  need  not  dwell  upon  it  now.  It  seems,  however, 
to  associate  God's  highest  glory  in  the  heavens  with  the 
greater  manifestation  of  His  glory  in  man  upon  the  earth, 
and  therefore  to  show  that  it  is  only  in  man  and  in  the 
nature  of  a  man  that  His  praise  can  be  adequately  set 
forth.  Man  is  thus  the  fullest  recipient  of  God's  glory, 
which  is  true,  whether  it  is  understood  generally  or  of  the 
Incarnation.  We  cannot  affirm  that  David  intended  to 
express  more  than  the  general  truth,  but  it  becomes  addi- 
tionally true  when  referred  to  the  perfect  Man. 

The  next  Psalm  which  requires  to  be  noticed  is  the 
sixteenth.  In  this  the  writer  prays  earnestly  for  preser- 
vation, and  declares  his  unbounded  and  unshaken  con- 
fidence in  God.  He  feels  that  the  reserve  of  wealth  which 
he  has  in  God  will  outlast  the  utmost  trials  of  life,  and 
survive  even  the  grave  itself;  that  in  fact  it  is  only  in  the 
immediate  presence  of  God  that  there  is  the  fulness  of 
joy,  and  at  His  right  hand  pleasures  for  evermore.  This 
is  the  earliest  and  perhaps  the  strongest  expression  in  the 
Old  Testament  of  that  eternal  life  which  is  independent 
of  things  temporal,  and  superior  even  to  death  itself.  It 
became,  therefore,  the  permanent  record  of  that  portion  in 
God  which  was  the  possession  of  the  Lord's  anointed  or 
holy  one,  and  was  a  perpetual  witness  to  the  delight  in 
God,  and  the  sense  of  security  in  and  through  death  which 
he  found  in  God.  That  there  were  other  more  definite 
elements  in  his  hope  does  not  appear  from  the  language 
used ;  but  here  was  the  very  essence  of  that  hope  which 

8  St.  Matt.  xxi.  16 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  27 ;  Eph.  i.  22 ;  Heb.  ii.  7. 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  87 

was  afterwards  presented  in  a  concrete  form  and  established 
by  the  resurrection.  Here  was  the  evidence  that  David 
himself  had  unmistakably  expressed  a  hope  which  a 
subsequent  event,  if  true,  had  fully  confirmed;  a  hope 
which  could  alone  be  proved  to  be  valid  by  the  manifesta- 
tion of  its  truth  in  one  particular  and  crucial  instance. 
But  when  it  was  clear  that  such  a  hope  had  a  thousand 
years  before  been  expressed  by  David,  there  was  at  least  a 
written  warranty  for  an  expectation  which  was  then  declared 
to  have  been  verified.  To  say  that  David's  language  was 
intended,  not  by  David  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  refer  to 
the  event  which  verified  it,  could  be  within  the  power  only 
of  men  who  themselves  spake  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  we 
call  in  question  their  claim  to  do  this,  we  cannot  prove 
the  truth  of  what  they  affirmed;  but  it  is  not  open  to 
question  that  such  a  hope  as  this  had  been  expressed  by 
David,  or  by  the  writer  of  the  sixteenth  Psalm,  whoever 
he  was ;  and  if  we  accept  the  fact  which  the  apostles  of 
Christ  proclaimed,  we  can  see  not  only  the  reasonableness 
of  this  hope,  but  the  probability  there  is  that  the  God  who 
implanted  it  reserved  the  accomplishment  of  His  own 
purposes  in  the  language  chosen  to  express  it. 

The  20th  and  21st  Psalms,  it  is  generally  supposed, 
must  be  taken  together.  They  are  ascribed  to  David,  and 
as  the  first  of  them  makes  mention  of  the  Lord's  anointed, 
we  may  presume,  for  the  reasons  already  given,  rightly  so. 
They  occupy  a  remarkable  position  between  the  16th  and 
the  22d  Psalms.  The  16th  Psalm  expressed  the  writer's 
confidence  of  deliverance  in  and  through  death,  the  21st 
Psalm  speaks  of  his  coronation  and  his  endless  life.  He 
is  also  manifestly  the  anointed  king  who  has  been  made 
exceeding  glad  with  the  countenance  of  God.  Now  here, 
whatever  else  there  is,  there  is  certainly  the  expression  of 
a  hope  full  of  immortality.  We  have  evidence  that  the 
Jews  long  afterwards  interpreted  this  Psalm  of  the  King 


88  The  Christ  of  the  -Psalms.  [LECT. 

Messiah;9  but  the  point  I  wish  to  observe  is,  that  the  Psalms 
clearly  ascribe  to  the  anointed  king,  whoever  he  may  be, 
deliverance  in  death,  length  of  days  for  ever  and  ever,  and 
special  glory  in  the  Divine  salvation.  We  may  fairly  ask, 
What  possible  meaning  could  David  have  in  saying  that 
he  had  asked  life  of  the  most  High,  and  that  He  had  given 
it  him,  even  length  of  days  for  ever  and  ever  ?  We  may 
with  equal  fairness  ask,  What  possible  meaning  could 
future  generations  attach  to  such  language,  after  David 
had  been  laid  unto  his  fathers  and  had  seen  corruption  ? 
The  meaning  that  has  been  attached1  we  of  course  know. 
It  is  that  which  is  derived  from  the  familiar  phrase,  0  king, 
live  for  ever,  or  the  expression,  /  will  dwell  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord  for  ever,  and  the  like;  and  it  is  plainly  possible 
so  to  understand  it.  But  it  is  no  less  certain  that  so  to 
understand  the  language,  does  not  exhaust  its  possible 
meaning.2  And  is  there  not  an  abiding  witness  in  the 
language  itself,  to  a  fuller  and  further  meaning,  which  needs 
only  to  be  suggested  to  commend  itself  as  at  once  the  truest 
and  the  best  ?  Was  there  not  in  such  language  another 
foundation-stone  laid  for  the  superstructure  which  was 
afterwards  to  be  reared  ?  And  is  it  not  possible  that  the 
more  ardent  spirits  in  Israel  may  have  grasped  a  hope 
which  was  suggested,  if  it  was  not  implied,  in  such  words 
as  these  ?  Material  was  at  any  rate  thus  being  accumulated, 
which,  in  times  of  great  national  or  individual  trouble, 
would  supply  the  groundwork  for  anticipations  which  had 
not  been  felt  before.  Elements  were  held  in  solution  which 
affliction  might  precipitate  in  a  very  distinct  and  definite 
form.  The  language  itself  was  pregnant  with  hopes  which 

9  See  the  Targum  and  Rashi. 

1  See  Perowne  on  1.  c.  and  xxiii.  6  ;  Ixi.  6  ;  xci.  16. 

2  The  proof  that  this  was  not  the  only  meaning  that  it  had  is  the  fact 
that  this  and  similar  language  became  the  groundwork  of  hopes  and 
expectations  that  could  not  have  been  formed  if  it  had  been. 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  89 

future  circumstances  might  develop  into  being,  and  awaken 
to  conscious  life. 

Nor  must  we  forget  that  the  writer  of  the  20th  Psalm, 
while  looking  for  his  help  from  God,  invokes  Him  as  the 
God  of  Jacob.  This  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  the 
Psalmist  has  used  this  phrase.  It  can  have  had  no  meaning 
to  him  but  the  meaning  which  we  understand  by  it — a 
meaning  which  is  derived  from  our  acquaintance  with  the 
facts  of  the  Mosaic  history,  with  which  he  therefore  must 
have  been  familiar  top.  But  the  use  of  this  phrase  implies 
not  only  his  knowledge  of  those  facts,  but  his  belief  also 
that  there  was  a  special  relation  in  which  Jacob  stood  to 
God,  that  he  was  a  party  to  a  real  covenant  and  the 
inheritor  of  a  real  promise.  It  serves  therefore  at  once, 
collaterally  and  independently,  to  authenticate  this  portion 
of  the  Mosaic  narrative,  and  also  to  give  additional  mean- 
ing to  the  Psalmist's  view  of  his  own  position.  God  was 
the  God  of  Jacob  because  He  had  chosen  Jacob — because 
He  had  given  him  a  special  promise  and  dealt  with  him  in 
a  special  way.  As  far  as  David  represented  the  seed  of 
Jacob,  and  gathered  up  in  himself  the  blessing  vouchsafed 
to  Israel,  he  must  have  regarded  that  promise  as,  in  a 
special  sense,  his  own.  He  was  the  focus  in  which  all  the 
rays  of  it  converged.  And  consequently  every  indication 
of  God's  dealings  with  himself  was  an  indication  of  His 
dealings  with  the  chosen  seed,  and  his  language  shows  us 
that  he  felt  it  so  to  be. 

The  next  Psalm  which  we  have  to  deal  with  is  the  22d. 
This  Psalm  affords  a  striking  instance  of  a  feature  which 
is  characteristic  of  so  many ;  namely,  the  abrupt  transition 
from  sorrow  to  joy.  Two-thirds  of  it  are  taken  up  with 
the  utterance  of  the  extremest  misery ;  but  in  the  last  ten 
verses  the  writer  is  as  triumphant  as  he  was  before  dejected. 
Before  he  has  been  crying  from  the  depths  of  despair ;  now 
he  suddenly  passes  into  praise  and  becomes  hopeful  and 


90  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

confident.  But  neither  the  sorrow  nor  the  joy  can  be 
understood  as  applying  to  David  or  to  any  other  con- 
ceivable writer.  We  not  only  cannot  imagine  that  David 
himself  was  ever  the  subject  of  the  treatment  here  de- 
scribed, but  that  he  would  ever  have  described  any  personal 
afflictions  to  which  he  was  exposed  in  such  a  way.  The 
language  becomes  practically  unmeaning  in  his  case,  making 
every  possible  allowance  for  hyperbole,  and  the  national 
records  furnish  us  with  no  other  character  to  whom  it  is 
likely  to  have  been  more  appropriate.  The  same  expecta- 
tion, however,  of  universal  dominion,  which  was  expressed 
in  the  second  Psalm,  finds  place  also  here ;  but  it  is 
distinctly  said  that  the  kingdom  is  the  Lord's,  and  that  He 
is  the  ruler  among  the  heathen.  It  is  also  said  that  a  people 
yet  unborn  shall  recognise  the  work  of  the  Lord  in  the 
particular  deliverance  which  the  Psalm  records — a  state- 
ment entirely  without  meaning  in  the  case  of  David,  but 
pregnant  with  the  fullest  significance  when  otherwise 
understood.  And  it  is  plain  that  any  one  who  pondered 
such  language  as  this  after  David's  time  must  have  had 
perplexing  inquiries  stirred  within  him  if  he  tried  to 
understand  it.  Whatever  the  writer  may  have  meant  or 
understood,  it  is  clear  that  his  language  was  marvellously 
suggestive.  It  seemed  to  express  and  to  open  out  antici- 
pations which  it  was  difficult  to  limit,  and  still  more  diffi- 
cult to  define.  Hopes  had  manifestly  centred  in  David's 
throne  which  were  never  realised ;  but  as  long  as  David's 
language  remained,  they  could  not  die.  It  is  no  wonder 
if  they  gave  the  impulse  to  other  hopes  destined  likewise 
to  disappointment,  and  yet  the  more  likely  to  be  fulfilled 
the  more  the  spirit  of  the  language  was  entered  into. 

The  40th  Psalm  is,  in  many  respects,  analogous  to  the 
22d,  but  it  is  more  within  the  possible  limits  of  the  writer's 
own  experience,  and  it  closes  without  the  same  confident 
expressions  of  triumph.  Like  the  50th  and  51st  Psalms, 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  91 

also,  it  expresses  a  conviction  of  the  uselessness  of  sacri- 
fices, and  the  far  greater  importance  of  conformity  to  the 
Divine  will.  It  is  thus  a  proof  that  the  author  had  risen 
to  a  high  spiritual  appreciation  of  the  law,  which  he 
admitted  to  be  binding  on  him,  if  we  do  not,  with  the 
Septuagint  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  regard  it  as  an 
evidence  that  he  saw  in  ike  volume  of  the  book  prophetic 
allusions  to  himself  and  his  seed.  But  the  fact  is,  that 
this,  in  common  with  the  other  Psalms,  becomes  far  more 
significant  when  understood  of  Another,  than  it  can  pos- 
sibly be  when  referred  to  David  or  to  any  one  else,  and  fitly 
therefore  takes  its  place  among  those  marvellous  composi- 
tions which  waited  for  their  elucidation  till  the  fulness  of 
time  should  come. 

In  vivid  contrast  with  this  is  the  45th  Psalm,  to  which 
we  now  turn.  This  is  manifestly  and  professedly  a  song  of 
love — an  epithalamium,  or  marriage  ode,  in  honour  of  some 
king,  whoever  he  may  have  been.  But  it  is  not  a  little 
surprising  that,  in  the  sixth  verse,  his  throne  is  identified 
with  the  throne  of  God,  and  that  he  himself  is  addressed 
as  God.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  2d,  the  20th,  and 
the  21st  Psalms,  it  shows  plainly  that  there  was  in  the 
Psalmist's  mind  an  eternal  King  and  an  eternal  kingdom 
with  which  the  throne  of  David  was,  in  some  mysterious 
way,  not  identified,  but  associated.  Had  it  not  been  for 
such  an  association,  he  could  never  have  spoken  of  himself 
or  his  kingdom  as  he  so  often  did.  But  when  we  connect 
this,  as  we  are  obliged  to  do,  with  the  promise  to  the  fathers, 
of  which  David  was  aware,  we  not  only  see  that  there  was 
already  a  development,  as  well  as  a  limitation,  of  the 
original  idea,  but  that  the  writer  himself  must  have  been 
conscious  of  it.  And  if  in  any  case,  as  apparently  here  in 
the  45th  Psalm,  that  writer  was  not  David,  the  persistency 
with  which  his  conceptions  attached  themselves  to  David, 
and  centred  in  him,  is  not  the  less  remarkable  or  significant. 


92  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

The  fact  that  the  convictions  concerning  David's  throne 
were  shared  by  others  besides  himself,  that  they  were  not 
only  personal  but  national,  must  be  held  to  make  them  at 
least  more  worthy  of  our  regard.  It  could  have  been  no 
ordinary  afflatus  which,  going  forth,  in  the  first  instance, 
perhaps  from  David,  thus  extended  and  communicated 
itself  to  the  sons  of  Korah,  and  inspired  them  with  senti- 
ments which,  like  his  own,  found  expression  in  language 
transcending  the  limits  of  the  temporal  or  the  human,  to 
be  fulfilled  and  warranted  only  by  the  eternal  and  the 
Divine.  Certainly,  at  this  time,  whatever  hopes  had  been 
raised  by  the  promise  to  Abraham,  had  centred  in  the 
person  of  a  king,  and  in  the  desire  for  a  universal  and  an 
endless  kingdom. 

In  no  Psalm,  however,  is  this  expressed  so  plainly  as  in 
the  72d,  which  is  apparently  ascribed  to  Solomon,  and  at 
all  events  has  reference  to  him.  Here,  again,  the  subject 
is  the  king  and  the  kings  son.  But  the  language  is  utterly 
unintelligible  when  interpreted  of  any  temporal  king. 
There  can  be  as  little  doubt,  however,  that  it  was  suggested 
by  the  actual  circumstances  of  a  living  monarch ;  and  it 
seems,  therefore,  to  contain  indisputable  proof  that,  at  the 
time  of  its  composition,  the  very  existence  of  the  Davidic 
throne  had  suggested  to  the  foremost  minds  of  the  nation 
the  conception  of  a  Divine  kingdom,  which  should  be 
established  in  righteousness,  which  should  be  the  refuge 
and  the  security  of  the  oppressed,  which  should  receive  the 
homage  of,  and  be  supreme  over,  all  kingdoms ;  which 
should  be  as  permanent  as  the  sun  and  the  moon,  and  be 
the  centre  and  source  of  universal  blessing.  Common 
sense  protests  against  the  notion  that  the  most  ardent  and 
patriotic  Israelite  can  ever  have  imagined  this  to  be  literally 
true,  or  to  be  intended  to  be  understood  literally  of  the 
personal  throne  of  either  David  or  Solomon.  But  it  is 
equally  obvious  that  such  ardent  and  enthusiastic  hopes 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  93 

were  not  only  cherished,  but  expressed.  The  natural 
inference  therefore  is,  that  at  this  time  the  establishment 
of  what  promised,  and  was  hoped,  to  be  a  permanent  throne 
in  Israel,  had  given  a  powerful  impulse  in  the  nation  to 
the  longing  for  a  great  and  glorious  dominion,  which  should 
be  superior  to  all  other  monarchies,  should  gather  up  all 
into  itself,  and  should  last  for  ever ;  while  the  utterance 
that  such  longings  found  in  the  poems  of  David  and  others 
was  calculated  to  spiritualise  and  elevate  their  character,  to 
ennoble  and  direct  their  tendency,  to  raise  them  off  the 
earthly  and  the  human,  and  to  plant  them  in  the  heavenly 
and  the  Divine. 

The  89th  Psalm,  which  is  inscribed  as  a  Maschil  of  Ethan 
the  Ezrahite,  is  highly  important,  because  it  gives  an  inde- 
pendent and  poetical  version  of  the  original  promise  made 
to  David,  and  of  which  the  historic  record  is  preserved  in 
2  Sam.  vii.  At  whatever  period  the  poem  was  composed, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  record,  in  some 
form  or  other,  was  already  in  existence.  If  the  poem  was 
not  based  upon  the  record,  as  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose, 
then  the  record  must  have  been  suggested  by  the  poem,  or 
borrowed  from  some  earlier  document  no  longer  extant. 
But  in  any  case  the  poem  and  the  narrative  may  be  taken 
as  affording  independent  evidence  to  the  same  event.  The 
existing  form,  moreover,  of  the  poem  is  almost  conclusive 
proof  of  its  later  origin.  But  the  writer  had  so  little  doubt 
of  the  reality  of  the  original  promise,  that  he  was  staggered 
solely  by  its  non-fulfilment.  The  reproach  that  he  bore  in 
his  bosom  was  on  this  account,  and  by  such  discipline  his 
faith  in  the  promise  was  rooted  and  confirmed.  But  it  is 
unintelligible  that  a  belief  so  deep  should  have  taken  hold 
of  the  national  mind  in  the  way  it  evidently  had,  if  no 
foundation  for  it  had  existed  in  fact.  In  this  respect  the 
poem  and  the  history  are  mutually  corroborative.  For 
some  reason  or  other  the  nation  had  become  possessed 


94  T/te  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

with  the  idea  that  the  permanence  of  David's  throne  was 
something  to  which  the  Divine  faithfulness  was  pledged. 
And  for  the  first  time  we  find  this  conviction  expressing 
itself  in  the  terms  of  a  forward-looking  hope.  The  eye  of 
the  writer  is  turned  from  the  contemplation  of  the  past  to 
the  distinct  anticipation  of  the  future.  His  enemies  have 
reproached  him  for  the  tardiness  of  the  Lord's  anointed. 
The  loving-kindness  that  had  been  sworn  unto  David  had 
not  yet  been  fulfilled,  but  had  called  forth  a  definite 
longing  for  fulfilment.  The  real  anointed  one  was  yet  to 
come.  David  and  Saul  had  each  borne  that  title,  but  the 
next  that  was  to  bear  it  with  truth  and  justice  was  the 
object  of  hope :  his  footsteps  were  delayed ;  but  so  ardently 
was  his  advent  longed  for,  that  his  very  delay  had  become 
the  occasion  for  reproach  and  ridicule.  The  writer's  enemies 
had  reproached  him  for  his  absurd  and  visionary  hopes. 
An  extraordinary  evidence  this,  no  matter  when  the  Psalm 
was  written,  to  the  reality  of  an  anticipation  of  some  kind, 
and  of  the  way  in  which  it  was  connected  in  the  popular 
mind,  so  far  as  the  Psalmist  was  a  type  of  it,  with  promises 
alleged  to  have  been  made  to  David,  and  commonly  believed 
in  as  pertaining  to  him.  Moreover,  the  whole  glory  of  the 
nation  is  clearly  regarded  as  centred  in  and  represented  by 
the  occupant  of  David's  throne  and  the  covenant  by  which 
it  was  established.  The  national  honour  was  in  the  dust 
because  the  throne  of  David  was  cast  down  to  the  ground, 
and  because  the  days  of  his  perpetual  youth  and  the  long 
life  which  had  been  promised  him  had  been  shortened. 

The  next  important  Psalm  which  requires  to  be  noticed 
is  the  110th.  This  Psalm  opens  with  a  declaration  of  the 
Lord — the  revealed  God  of  the  nation — to  a  person  whom 
the  writer  calls  his  lord.  Disregarding  the  ascription,3  or 
doing  violence  to  the  interpretation  of  it,  that  person  may 
be  presumed  to  have  been  David;  but  then  the  subject- 

8  It  is  inscribed  a  Psalm  of  David. 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  95 

matter  of  this  declaration,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 
becomes  extravagantly  inappropriate,  not  to  say  wliolly 
unintelligible.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  a  covenant 
of  priesthood  had  ever  been  made,  or  was  ever  supposed 
to  have  been  made,  with  David.  There  is  no  trace, 
anywhere  in  the  history,  of  a  combination  of  the  royal 
and  priestly  functions  in  the  person  of  David  or  of  any 
other  king,  similar  to  that  which  is  recorded  of  Mel- 
chizedec,  who  is  the  type  or  pattern  selected.  For  though 
certain  kings  may  have  exercised  certain  functions  more 
properly  sacerdotal,  such  as  blessing  the  people  and  the 
like,  it  was  never  said  of  any  king  that  he  was  the  priest 
of  the  most  High  God,  nor  does  it  seem  at  all  probable  that 
David  could  ever  have  been  addressed,  or  have  suffered 
himself  to  be  addressed,  in  the  language  of  the  Psalm, 
which,  in  fact,  if  applied  to  him,  is  contradicted  by  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  existing  history.  Not  more  possible  is 
it  to  regard  this  poem  as  a  later  production  of  Maccabsean 
times,  when  the  functions  of  the  priest  and  ruler  were 
combined.4  Its  archaic  appearance  is  then  inexplicable, 
as  well  as  the  ascription  which  it  bears  and  the  traditional 
belief  of  its  origin  which  had  already  obtained  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  But  if  it  is  really  ancient,  and  cannot  have 
been  addressed  to  David  or  to  any  descendant  of  David, 
we  can  only  infer  that  it  was  written  by  David,  and 
addressed  to  an  unknown  person  whom  he  calls  his  lord. 
This  person  is  described  as  a  warrior,  but  a  warrior  for 
whom  the  Lord  lights,  while  he  sits  calmly  and  passively 
at  His  right  hand.  The  rod  or  symbol  of  his  strength  is 
to  be  sent  forth  by  the  Lord  from  out  of  Zion,  and  he  is  to 
rule  in  the  midst  of  his  enemies.  His  people,  for  he  is 
king  as  well  as  warrior,  are  to  be  free-will  offerings  in  the 
day  of  his  power,  and  are  to  throng  around  him  thick  as 
the  dewdrops  of  the  dawn  upon  the  mountains  and  the 

4  1  Mac.  xiv.  41. 


96  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

plains,  clad  in  the  bright  and  glorious  array  of  holiness. 
His  own  youth  is  to  be  fresh  and  vigorous  from  the 
fountains  of  the  dawn.  He  is  to  be  rejuvenescent  like  the 
"  beam  celestial" 

"Which  evermore  makes  all  things  new," 

according  as  we  prefer  to  understand  the  marvellously 
condensed  language  and  profuse  imagery  of  the  poet. 
But  more  conspicuous  than  his  character  as  warrior  and 
king  is  the  fact  of  his  priestly  office.  This  has  been  the 
subject  of  the  most  emphatic  declaration  of  the  Almighty. 
The  Lord  sware  and  will  not  repent,  Thou  art  a  priest  for 
ever  after  tJie  order  of  Melchizcdec.  As  this  is  the  only 
allusion  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  mysterious  King  of 
Salem,  it  is  of  course  conclusive  proof  that  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Genesis  was  in  existence  at  the  time  when  this 
Psalm  was  written,  whenever  that  was.  But  it  is  likewise 
proof  that  the  writer  must  have  contemplated  another 
priesthood  than  that  of  Aaron,  and  apparently  have  re- 
garded it  as  more  complete  and  permanent  than  his.  The 
possessor  of  this  priesthood  was  the  warrior  king  to  whom 
his  poem  was  addressed.  So  that  the  person  he  has  in 
view  combines  in  himself  these  various  functions,  but  by 
far  the  most  prominent  is  that  of  priest,  for  his  priesthood 
is  after  a  new  order,  or  rather  after  an  old  order  revived. 
The  function  of  warrior  also  appears  to  be  less  real  than 
figurative,  for  he  is  content  to  let  the  Lord  fight  for  him, 
as  indeed  He  continues  to  do  throughout  the  Psalm, 
smiting  kings  in  the  day  of  His  wrath,  judging  among  the 
nations,  filling  their  countries  with  the  slain,  and  destroying 
the  most  powerful  of  their  monarchies.  And,  lastly,  like 
Gideon's  warriors,  this  priestly  king  is  himself  to  be 
refreshed  on  his  way  to  victory  by  water  from  the  brook, 
and  so  to  pass  on  conquering  and  to  conquer. 

If,  however,  in  order  to  avoid  the  somewhat  violent  and 
unnatural  change  of  position  assigned  to  this  mysterious 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  97 

personage,  who  first  sits  on  the  Lord's  right  hand,  and  then 
fights  with  the  Lord  on  his,  we  regard  the  fifth  verse  as 
addressed  not  to  him,  but  to  the  Most  High,  then  it  is  clear 
that  in  the  mind  of  the  poet  he  is  not  only  king,  warrior, 
and  priest,  but  entitled  also  to  the  Divine  and  incommu- 
nicable name  Adonai.5  The,  Lord  (whom  before  in  the  first 
verse  the  poet  has  called  my  Lord),  seated  at  thy  right  hand, 
0  God,  hath  smitten  through  kings  in  the  day  of  his  wrath: 
he  is  judge  among  the  nations,  whose  lands  are  filled  with 
slain,  while  their  most  powerful  monarclis  are  overthrown  by 
him. 

In  either  case  there  is  a  change  of  imagery  —  in  the  one 
with  regard  to  the  position  of  the  subject,  in  the  other  with 
regard  to  his  personal  action  ;  for  he  who  before  was  seated 
on  his  throne  is  now  represented  as  engaged  in  active  fight  : 
but  this  matters  not  —  the  main  point  is  that  the  Psalm  is 
a  witness  to  the  conception  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  of  a 
person  whom  he  called  his  Lord,  and  who  was  king,  warrior, 
and  priest.  His  cause  is  evidently  the  cause  of  the  Most 
High,  for  it  is  He  who  fights  for  him.  And  as  in  the  second 
Psalm  the  establishment  of  the  king's  throne  was  the  sub- 
ject of  Divine  appointment,  so  here  the  king's  priesthood 
is  the  subject  of  a  Divine  and  irrevocable  oath.  Dark  and 
mysterious  as  these  utterances  must  have  seemed  to  the 
people  of  that  time,  and  not  improbably  to  him  who  wrote 
them,  they  are  at  least  evidence  as  to  the  nature  of  ideas 
then  prevalent  of  a  person  at  once  royal  and  priestly, 
exalted  to  a  position  of  great  eminence,  and  going  forth  to 
victory  which  should  place  the  kings  of  the  earth  in 
subjection  under  him.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
incidents  and  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  such  con- 
ceptions, we  are  not  only  competent  to  estimate  their 
character  when  formed,  but  able  likewise  to  see  that  the 


5  Cf.  the  apparent  application  of  jVlKn  to  the  angel  of  the  covenant  in 
Mai.  iii.  1. 

H 


98  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms,  [LECT. 

brilliancy  of  their  colour  would  remain  long  after  the 
aspirations  which  originated  them  had  failed,  and,  like 
that  of  autumnal  leaves  on  the  mountain  or  the  forest, 
would  deepen  as  they  decayed.  And  when  the  fortunes 
of  the  nation  sunk  to  their  lowest  ebb,  the  permanent 
record  of  such  thoughts  would  be  precisely  that  around 
which  the  hopes  and  affections  of  the  people  would  gather, 
and  to  which  they  would  cling  most  tenaciously. 

In  illustration  of  this  there  remains  one  other  Psalm  of 
probably  a  much  later  period  which  calls  for  particular 
notice,  namely,  the  132d.  This,  like  the  89th  Psalm,  is 
independent  evidence  of  the  promise  that  had  been  made 
to  David,  Of  the  fruit  of  thy  'body  will  I  set  upon  thy 
throne.  It  appears  also  to  be  evidence  that,  whenever  it 
was  written,  that  promise  was  not  considered  to  have  been 
fulfilled ;  but  it  is  likewise  proof  that  such  fulfilment  was 
anxiously  looked  for  and  ardently  believed  in.  The  phe- 
nomenon, therefore,  that  we  have  to  account  for  is  the 
existence  of  this  belief.  If  we  could  determine  accurately 
the  date  of  every  psalm,  we  might  speak  with  additional 
confidence.  But  the  internal  evidence  of  this  particular 
poem  is  sufficient  warrant  for  what  has  been  said.  During 
the  lifetime  of  David  there  would  have  been  no  room  for 
such  a  production,  still  less  during  that  of  Solomon,  when 
the  primary  fulfilment  of  the  promise  was  obvious.  We 
are  constrained,  therefore,  to  refer  it  to  a  later  period,  when 
it  seemed  that  the  Lord  required  to  be  reminded  of  all 
that  had  been  sworn  in  truth  unto  David — when,  for  the 
sake  of  all  that  had  been  so  sworn  to  him,  God  might  be 
entreated  to  turn  not  back  the  face  of  His  anointed.  In  fact, 
the  later  we  place  the  date  of  this  Psalm  the  more  remark- 
able that  expression  the  Lord's  anointed  becomes;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  if  we  refer  it  to  the  time  of  David  himself, 
it  is  almost  needful  to  assume  the  exercise  of  a  prophetic 
gift  to  account  for  its  production  at  all.  Here  also  we  meet 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  99 

with  the  same  identification  of  David  with  the  anointed 
one  (ver.  17)  which  has  been  mentioned  before,  and  yet  it 
is  expressed  in  a  way  that  seems  to  show  that  he  personally 
was  not  entitled  to  the  full  significance  of  that  name. 
But  at  all  events  we  have  here  again  an  evidence  of  the 
belief  that  in  the  seed  of  David  there  was  laid  up  a  hope 
for  the  nation,  and  that  the  nation,  so  far  as  this  writer 
represented  them,  clung  to  the  promise  of  the  hope. 

This,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  evidence  which  is  afforded 
by  the  Psalms  to  the  development  of  those  national  antici- 
pations that  gradually,  and  after  a  long  period,  shaped 
themselves  to  a  definite  form.  Although  as  compositions 
the  Psalms  are  plainly  to  be  referred  to  various  ages ;  yet, 
as  anonymous  productions,  as  they  often  are,  they  have  a 
certain  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair  expression  of  the 
national  thought  uttering  itself  in  popular  odes  and  hymns. 
They  are,  in  the  first  place,  a  clear  proof  of  the  way  in 
which  the  people  regarded  themselves  as  inheritors  of  a 
blessing  pronounced  upon  their  fathers.  It  was  as  the 
seed  of  Jacob  that  they  were  near  to  God.  There  is  no 
other  explanation  of  this  belief  than  that  which  is  supplied 
by  the  Mosaic  record  of  a  promise  attaching  to  the  seed 
of  Jacob.  The  form  in  which  this  promise  is  originally 
found  is  vague  and  general.  It  is  the  Psalms  that  show 
us  a  gradual  limitation  of  the  national  ideas  in  a  special 
direction.  The  promise  believed  to  have  been  given  origin- 
ally to  Abraham,  and  connected  with  his  seed  at  large, 
is  now  found  to  be  centered  in  David,  and  attached  to 
the  permanence  of  his  throne.  The  identification  of  the 
promises  in  both  cases  needs  not  to  be  shown.  We  may, 
if  we  please,  regard  them  as  distinct.  It  is  the  fact  that 
requires  to  be  grasped,  which  the  literature  itself  demon- 
strates, that  in  the  time  of  David,  and  ever  afterwards,  his 
family  and  throne  were  regarded  in  a  special  manner  as 
inheriting  Divine  promises  and  a  Divine  blessing ;  while 


ioo  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

the  additional  fact  of  this  very  limitation  is  itself  a  proof 
that  in  point  of  time  it  must  have  followed  after,  and  not 
preceded,  a  wider,  less  limited,  and  more  general  belief. 
To  have  invented  the  notion  of  promises  made  to  Abraham 
after  the  belief  had  originated  of  blessings  which  centred 
in  David,  would  have  been  unmeaning  and  impossible ; 
while  the  rise  and  origin  of  this  belief  would  still  remain 
to  be  accounted  for. 

The  earliest  traces  and  records  of  the  nation  which  we 
possess  or  can  discover  leave  us  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  way 
in  which  they  regarded  themselves.  The  mere  existence 
of  a  character  like  David,  and  the  belief  which  was  centred 
in  him,  would  have  been  impossible  except  in  a  people  who 
believed  themselves  to  hold  the  exceptional  position  which 
their  records  assign  to  them.  While,  therefore,  the  evidence 
of  the  hope  which  centred  in  David  is  patent  and  docu- 
mentary, we  cannot  account  for  it  without  postulating  an 
earlier,  more  simple,  and  more  general  belief,  of  which  we 
have  indeed  ostensible  records  that  on  the  whole  may  be 
judged  to  present  a  trustworthy  account  of  its  origin, 
inasmuch  as  none  can  be  devised  at  once  so  natural,  so 
simple,  or  so  complete. 

And  looking  at  the  matter  in  this  light,  it  is  for  us  to 
determine  the  relation  between  the  promise  to  Abraham 
and  that  to  David,  or  whether  they  are  wholly  distinct 
and  independent.  All  that  we  can  say  upon  the  evidence 
presented  by  the  Psalms  is  that  they  are  a  very  remarkable 
expression  of  the  national  belief  centred  in  David,  and  a 
very  remarkable  effect  arising  from  it. 

Nor  is  there  any  similar  result  which  can  be  produced 
as  a  parallel  to  this  from  any  other  literature.  We  may 
even  doubt  whether  some  confirmation  of  the  reality  and 
validity  of  the  belief  is  not  afforded  by  the  very  pro- 
ductions to  which  it  gave  rise.  For  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  infer  that  effects  unique  and  unparalleled  in  themselves 


in.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  101 

are  indications  of  a  unique  and  unparalleled  cause.  And. 
consequently,  as  the  literature  produced  by  the  Davidic 
promise  is  some  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  promise 
itself,  so  is  the  presumable  reality  of  the  Davidic  promise 
some  confirmation  and  evidence  of  an  earlier  promise — 
some  proof  that  it  must  have  existed,  and  if  it  existed, 
some  proof  likewise  of  its  fulfilment. 

Of  course,  if  we  assume  the  possibility  and  the  actual 
occurrence  of  a  Divine  communication,  the  explanation  of 
the  whole  matter  is  simple  enough ;  but  we  desire  to  forego 
this  assumption,  and  to  arrive  if  possible  at  a  result  which 
shall  be  at  once  unbiassed  and  satisfactory,  upon  an 
impartial  consideration  of  the  evidence  at  hand.  And 
considering  the  nature  and  amount  of  this  evidence ; — that 
it  is  in  the  truest  sense  documentary,  because  comprised 
in  a  national  literature ;  that  it  is  to  be  referred  to  many 
epochs  and  many  authors ;  that  it  is  consistent  with  itself 
and  not  contradictory,  for  from  first  to  last  there  is  no  rival 
to  dispute  with  David  the  inheritance  of  the  promise  made 
to  him,  since  the  case  of  Jeroboam  is  not  analogous ;  con- 
sidering that  the  form  it  assumes,  whether  of  suffering  or 
of  triumph,  whether  of  glory  or  of  shame,  is  one  that  no 
theory  of  exaggeration  will  sufficiently  account  for;  that 
this  hope,  while  it  centres  in  the  family  and  seed  of  David, 
is  at  one  time  the  hope  of  victory  over  death,  of  pleasures 
at  God's  right  hand  for  evermore,  at  another  of  endless  life 
and  coronation  with  eternal  felicity,  at  another  of  universal 
dominion  and  the  perpetuity  of  his  throne,  of  a  king  who 
is  to  sit  at  God's  right  hand  and  yet  to  be  a  priest  for 
ever,  but  not  like  the  sons  of  Levi ;  that  when  the  nation 
is  at  its  lowest,  the  hope  is  still  bright  and  vivid  that  the 
house  of  David  will  flourish,  that  the  Lord  has  ordained  a 
lamp  for  His  anointed; — considering  all  this,  and  even 
more  than  this,  it  is  hard  to  say  that  the  impression  pro- 
duced by  the  whole  is  not  one  that  bears  witness  to  the 


IO2  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  [LECT. 

originating  cause  of  all  as  being  something  more  than 
ordinary,  and  more  than  human. 

Even  if  we  refer  these  literary  phenomena  to  an  intense 
faith  in  the  writers,  yet  there  must  have  been  some  cause 
to  produce  it.  There  must  have  been  something  to  account 
for  its  origin.  There  is  no  second  instance  of  a  similar 
national  faith  producing  similar  national  results.  We 
cannot  refer  it  to  causes  purely  natural.  No  form  of 
nature- worship,  or  development  of  ideas  suggested  by  the 
national  language,  or  outgrowth  of  previously  existing 
heathen  notions,  would  have  sufficed  to  produce  it.  The 
way  in  which  David  was  selected  for  his  high  office,  was 
disiplined  and  prepared  for  it,  was  recognised  first  by  the 
reigning  family  and  afterwards  by  the  people  at  large,  all 
points  to  some  external  motive  power  such  as  that  which 
is  supplied  by  the  conduct  of  Samuel.  Here  would  have 
been  an  adequate  cause  for  the  effect  produced,  and  we  can 
find  no  other ;  but  then  the  reality  and  the  genuineness  of 
this  cause  finds  its  evidence  in  the  national  literature,  and 
in  the  current  of  the  national  history.  Take  away  the 
cause  and  the  effect  will  cease;  but  the  effect  remains 
permanent  and  indestructible,  and  therefore  the  cause  was 
real. 

It  is  important  also  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  occurrence 
of  the  several  allusions  in  the  Psalms,  which  presuppose 
events  in  the  national  history,  is  of  the  highest  possible 
value;  for  if  these  allusions  are  genuine,  they  afford 
independent  confirmation  of  the  history,  and  if  they  are 
otherwise,  then  they  can  only  have  been  produced  after 
the  history  was  in  existence. 

Moreover,  it  is  abundantly  plain  that  the  era  of  David 
was  fruitful  in  the  production  of  many  elements,  which 
subsequently,  and  with  good  reason,  became  the  foundation 
of  national  hopes  that  centred  in  an  ideal  personage  who 
should  be  royal,  priestly,  national,  and  human.  We  find 


HI.]  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  103 

marked  indications  of  these  characteristic  elements  which 
were  original  with  David,  and  find  their  first  expression  in 
the  Psalms.  Nothing  can  shake  this  evidence,  because  it 
is  cumulative  and  it  is  obvious.  It  does  not  rest  on  one 
circumstance  alone,  but  on  many.  It  is  not  found  in  one 
Psalm,  but  in  many.  It  does  not  depend  upon  the 
genuineness  of  particular  Psalms,  but  is  equally  significant 
whether  they  are  the  productions  of  David  or  of  any  one 
else,  because  their  uniform  testimony  points  to  David,  and 
to  the  promise  which  centred  in  him.  They  are  the  per- 
petual record  of  a  nation's  faith,  the  unalterable  verdict  of 
a  nation's  judgment,  which,  being  as  it  is  entirely  without 
parallel,  requires  to  be  accounted  for,  and  is  fully  accounted 
for  on  one  supposition,  but  on  one  only.  If  the  promise  to 
David  was  a  fact,6  then  the  Messianic  Psalms  are  accounted 
for  and  explained.  If  there  was  in  that  promise  no  foun- 
dation of  Divine  reality  and  truth,  then  they  are  a  hopeless 
puzzle,  a  phenomenon  without  a  cause,  destitute  of  interest 
and  devoid  of  meaning ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  very 
way  in  which  the  Psalms  transcended  the  limitations  of 
the  original  promise  as  the  history  records  it,  is  itself  an 
evidence  of  yet  further  development  and  growth,  a  proof 
that  in  the  promise  there  was  a  germ  which  was  destined 
to  expand  and  fructify  till  the  whole  earth  was  covered 
with  the  shadow  and  the  riches  of  it. 

*  It  can  hardly  be  needful  to  observe  that  David's  title,  as  it  is  expressed 
in  the  Psalms,  cannot  be  resolved  into  a  poetic  or  hyperbolical  expression 
of  the  truth  of  Prov.  viii.  15 :  By  me  kings  reign,  and  princes  decree  justice, 
and  the  like ;  because  all  the  peculiar  features  that  characterise  it  suggest 
something  very  much  more  than  any  such  vague  and  general  statement, 
and  are  clearly  intended  to  do  so.  David's  title  is  manifestly  understood 
to  be  not  ordinary  but  special  altogether,  and  alike  exceptional  in  the 
annals  of  contemporary  nations  and  his  own. 


LECTURE   IV. 

THE   CHRIST  OF  PROPHECY. 


Srcuxin  citharis  et  hujusmodi  organis  musicis,  non  quidem  omnia,  quse 
tanguntur,  canorum  aliquid  resonant,  sed  tantum  chordae  :  csetera  tamen 
in  toto  citharse  corpore  ideo  fabricata  sunt,  ut  essent  ubi  vincirentur,  unde 
et  a  quo  tenderentur  illse,  quas  ad  cantilenae  suavitatem  modulaturus  et 
perculsurus  est  artifex:  Ita  in  his  propheticis  narrationibus,  quse  de 
rebus  gestis  hominum  prophetico  spirit  a  deliguntur,  aut  aliquid  jam 
sonant  signification  futurorum:  aut  si  nihil  tale  significant,  ad  hoc 
interponuntur,  ut  sit,  unde  ilia  significantia,  tanquam  sonantia  connec- 
tantur. — S.  Augustinus. 


LECTURE   IV. 

And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them 
in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself. 
ST.  LUKE  xxiv.  27. 

HHAKING  the  Psalms  broadly  as  originating  in  the  age 
•*•  of  David,  to  which,  doubtless,  many  of  them  belong, 
they  represent  a  condition  of  thought  some  two  centuries 
earlier  than  the  earliest  of  the  prophets,  while  there  is 
probably  no  Psalm  so  late  as  the  time  of  Malachi. 
Prophecy,  moreover,  was  a  distinct  and  separate  develop- 
ment of  the  national  life,  while  the  writings  of  the 
prophets,  taken  as  a  whole,  are  perhaps  the  most  remark- 
able and  original  monuments  of  the  national  literature.  It 
is  not  too  much  to  say  that  they  are  unique  in  the 
literature  of  the  world,  and  have  no  parallel  elsewhere. 
They  constitute,  therefore,  an  independent  field  for  inves- 
tigation, and  exhibit  generally  the  results  of  a  further 
advance  of  national  thought  and  life. 

It  is  also  manifest  that  the  prophets  were  not  in  the 
position  of  absolutely  new  writers,  who  had  inherited 
nothing  from  the  past.  They  had  not  only  the  national 
history  but  the  Psalms  of  David  to  work  upon.  They 
were  certainly  familiar  with,  and  believed  in,  the  promise 
to  David.  They  were  also  undoubtedly  familiar  with  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs,  and  with  the  promises  said  to 
have  been  made  to  them.  The  writings  of  Hosea,  one  of 
the  earliest  of  the  prophets,  afford  conclusive  evidence  that 
he  was  acquainted  not  only  with  the  Mosaic  narrative,  but 


io8  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

likewise  with  the  history  recorded  in  the  books  of  Joshua 
and  Judges,  to  which  therefore  we  may  presume  he  was 
indebted  for  it.1  These  facts  must  not  be  forgotten,  as 
they  cannot  be  denied,  in  dealing  with  the  writings  of  the 
prophets. 

We  have  got,  then,  at  the  time  when  the  first  of  the 
prophets  began  to  write,  a  deep  conviction  of  the  destiny 
of  the  people,  and  of  the  relation  in  which  they  stood  to 
God.  We  have  got  the  rooted  belief  that  they  were  the 
depositories  of  Divine  promises,  covenants,  and  blessings. 
We  have  got  the  knowledge  of  the  rise  and  establishment 
of  David's  throne,  of  the  special  covenant  associated  there- 
with, of  the  apparent  and  repeated  failure  of  the  promise 
made  to  him,  inasmuch  as  a  rival  kingdom  had  arisen. 
We  have  got,  at  any  rate,  some  of  the  more  important 
Psalms,  such,  for  example,  as  the  2d,  the  16th,  the  20th, 
21st,  and  22d,  the  72d,  and  the  110th.  The  schools  of  the 
prophets  could  not  have  existed  and  the  prophets  them- 
selves have  been  ignorant  of  these  productions,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  very  object  of  those  schools  being  the 
encouragement  of  a  Divine  afflatus,  and  the  fostering  of  a 
Divine  education. 

The  prophets,  then,  obviously  had  materials  to  work 
upon  when  they  entered  on  their  mission.  Nothing  that 
they  wrote  could  have  been  written  in  ignorance  of  these 
materials,  or  independently  of  any  influence  which  the 
knowledge  of  them  may  have  had.  It  is  more  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  some  of  their  utterances  may  have  been 

1  Hosea  refers  to  Joshua  vii.  26,  in  ii.  15  ;  to  Judges  xix.  22,  in  ix.  9 ; 
and  to  Judges  xx.  in  x.  9 ;  also  probably  to  the  language  of  the  song 
of  Deborah,  Judges  v.  14,  in  v.  8.  In  him  also  is  found  the  remarkable 
prophecy,  iii.  5,  Afterward  shall  the  children  of  Israel  return  and  seek  the 
Lord  their  God,  and  DAVID  THEIR  KINO  ;  for  which  see  a  sermon  by  the 
writer  in  Good  Words  for  April  1874.  This  prophecy  is  of  the  greater 
importance  as  bearing  on  our  argument,  because  emanating  from  Israel 
and  addressed  to  Israel. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  109 

suggested  by  them.  It  would  be  doing  violence  to  both  to 
dissociate  altogether  the  one  from  the  other. 

The  book  of  Jonah,  the  earliest  of  the  prophets,  no 
matter  when  it  was  written,  is  a  wonderful  illustration  of 
Israel's  mission  to  the  world  at  large ;  and  the  conception 
embodied  is  one  which  at  any  period  is  marvellously 
significant.  The  mission  of  Jonah  to  Nineveh,  which,  so 
far  at  any  rate,  is  unquestionable,  is  a  marked  instance  of 
the  constraining  power  of  the  prophetic  impulse,  and  also 
of  the  way  in  which  Israel  was  made  to  feel  himself 
charged  with  a  message  to  the  nations.  Moreover,  the 
incident  must  be  referred  to  a  very  early  date,  whenever 
the  narrative  of  it  appeared ;  and  it  supplied  a  running 
commentary  on  the  ancient  words,  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord 
your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your  brethren. 

The  same  is  equally  true  of  Amos,  who  was  neither  a 
prophet  nor  a  prophet's  son,  but  one  of  the  herdmen  of 
Tekoa.  He  takes  up  the  language  of  Joel,  and  proclaims 
the  message  of  the  Lord  to  Syria,  Philistia,  Tyre,  Edom, 
Ammon,  and  Moab,  as  well  as  to  the  palaces  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  mountains  of  Samaria.  Surely  it  is,  under 
all  circumstances,  a  remarkable  phenomenon  that  a  simple 
herdinan  and  gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit  should  have  felt 
himself  moved  at  that  early  age  to  denounce  the  foremost 
nations  of  his  time,  and  to  confront  the  most  powerful 
monarch  of  his  own  nation ;  and  that  his  mission  should 
have  been  acknowledged,  as  it  was,  in  an  idolatrous  and 
apostate  land,  and  should  have  produced  the  result  it  did, 
and  should  have  left  to  all  time  the  permanent  record 
that  it  has.  All  this  becomes  intelligible  on  the  suppo- 
sitions just  mentioned,  and,  granting  those  suppositions, 
it  becomes  to  a  certain  extent  even  natural;  whereas, 
rejecting  them,  it  is  neither  intelligible  nor  natural. 

And  it  is  in  this  ancient  prophet  that  we  meet  with  a 


no  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

recognition  of  the  promise  made  to  David,  which  shows  at 
once  his  firm  belief  in  it,  and  the  fact  that  in  his  time  it 
had  apparently  failed :  In  that  day  will  I  raise  up  the  taber- 
nacle of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  close  up  the  breaches 
thereof;  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I  will  build  it 
as  in  the  days  of  old?  The  expression  "tabernacle"3  is 
remarkable,  because  it  seems  to  imply  the  giving  place  to 
a  more  permanent  edifice,  as  though  the  temporal  throne  of 
David  was  nothing  more  than  a  provisional  arrangement ; 
while  the  mention  of  "the  days  of  old"  serves  to  show 
that  after  the  lapse  of  two  centuries  the  prophet  still  had 
a  sufficiently  distinct  remembrance  of  it,  and  of  the  promise 
on  which  it  rested. 

And  if  the  language  of  Amos  indicates  any  change  from 
the  way  in  which  the  promise  had  been  understood  by 
David,  such  change  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of 
development,  inasmuch  as  the  substance  of  the  promise  is 
still  clung  to,  though  the  expected  manner  of  its  fulfilment 
is  different.  Time  was  gradually  unfolding  the  essential 
character  of  the  Davidic  anticipations.  As  the  husk 
decayed  and  died  away,  the  real  permanence  and  vitality 
of  the  kernel  was  more  and  more  revealed. 

Another  prophet  whom  we  must  notice  in  passing  is 
Micah,  who  flourished  in  what  may  be  called  the  Augustan 
age  of  prophecy.  The  last  words  of  his  book  are  an 
obvious  proof  of  the  way  in  which  he  regarded  the  destiny 
of  his  nation,  and  may  be  taken  as  presumptive  evidence 
that  he  had  the  record  of  the  promises  before  him : — Thou 
wilt  perform  the  truth  to  Jacob,  and  the  mercy  to  A  braham, 
which  thou  hast  sworn  unto  our  fathers  from  the  days  of  old. 
And  it  was  given  to  Micah  to  add  his  contribution  to  the 
growing  definiteness  of  the  ancient  and  indefinite  promise, 
just  as  it  was  given  to  him,  in  common  with  other  prophets, 
to  achieve  a  more  spiritual  conception  of  the  Divine  service ; 

2  Amos  ix.  11.        8  B3D.     Cf.  Is.  xvi.  5,  where  the  word  is 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  in 

for  he  saw  that  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  before  God,  was  more  acceptable  than  thousands 
of  rams,  or  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil. 

He,  moreover,  has  established  his  claim  to  be  a  prophet 
from  his  clear  enunciation  in  the  palmy  days  of  Hezekiah, 
that  Zion  should  be  ploughed  as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  become 
heaps ; 4  and  that  the  daughter  of  Zion  should  go  forth  out 
of  the  city,  and  dwell  in  the  field,  and  go  even  unto  Babylon.5 
But  even  if  such  declarations  are  resolved  into  the  utter- 
ances of  acute  foresight,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  account  for  or 
to  assign  any  meaning  to  his  assertion,  any  time  during 
the  age  of  Hezekiah,  that  the  first  or  former  dominion 
should  come  to  the  tower  of  Edar?  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Bethlehem,  and  the  kingdom  to  the  daughter  of  Jerusalem. 
Still  less  intelligible  is  the  statement,  They  shall  smite  the 
judge  of  Israel  with  a  rod  upon  the  cheek  ;7  and  his  yet  more 
distinct  and  reiterated  assertion  that  out  of  Bethlehem 
Ephratah  should  come  forth  he  that  was  to  be  ruler  in  Israel, 
whose  goings  forth  had  been  from  of  old,  from  the  days  of 
eternity.9  Bearing  in  mind  that  this  prophet  had  inherited 
a  considerable  mass  of  oracular  and  prophetic  utterances, 
it  becomes  impossible  to  dissociate  his  own  enunciations 
from  them,  or  to  suppose  that  he  had  no  designed  reference 
to  them.  If  the  throne  of  David  was  to  be  rebuilt  after 
the  promise  of  Amos,  who  preceded  Micah,  it  is  impossible 
to  say  that  the  kingdom  and  the  first  dominion  of  him  that 
was  to  be  ruler  in  Israel  was  not  a  repetition  of  the  same 
idea,  an  expression  running  in  the  same  channel  and  in  the 
same  direction.  The  prophets,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  appear 
to  have  been  possessed,  one  and  all,  with  a  similar  con- 
ception, to  which  they  gave  utterance,  each  in  his  own 
way,  but  independently,  and  yet  in  such  a  manner  that 
the  several  elements  are  susceptible  eventually  of  the  most 
successful  and  significant  combination.  This  may  be 

4  Micah  iii.  12.         5  iv.  3.        «  iv.  5.        7  v.  1.         8  v.  2. 


112  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

accident,  and  indeed  its  whole  value  consists  in  its  not 
being  the  result  of  conscious  design  on  the  part  of  the 
writers,  which  it  cannot  be ;  but  if  the  final  and  complete 
effect  is  accidental,  it  is  hard  to  say  what  indications  of 
the  working  of  a  conscious  moral  will  would  be  sufficient 
to  prove  design.  At  all  events  there  is  evidence  in  Micah 
that  he  looked  for  a  coming  ruler  in  Israel  at  a  time  when 
actually  no  such  ruler  was  wanted,  inasmuch  as  Hezekiah 
was  then  sitting  on  the  throne  of  David,  and  not  without 
honour  and  renown  that  were  worthy  of  his  ancestral  line. 

And  it  is  certain  that  in  this  prophet  we  have  one  or  two 
new  and  original  characteristics  added  to  those  already 
existing  of  the  person  who  is  the  object  of  anticipation. 
He  is  called  distinctly  the  ruler  and  judge  of  Israel.  He 
is  to  be  smitten  on  the  cheek  with  a  rod,  which  implies 
apparently  some  rejection  of  his  claim.  He  is  to  be  a 
person  of  so  much  dignity  as  to  ennoble  and  glorify  his 
birthplace,  which  is  identified  with  Bethlehem,  a  town 
already  famous  alike  in  the  annals  of  David  and  of  Jacob  ;9 
and  lastly,  his  goings  forth  are  declared  most  mysteriously 
to  have  been  from  of  old,  from  the  days  of  eternity. 

Whatever  may  have  been  originally  meant  or  understood 
by  all  this,  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  this  is  what  was 
written  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  some  seven  centuries 
and  more  before  the  Christian  era.  And  if  we  take  it,  as 
we  are  bound  to  do,  in  connection  with  other  declarations 
and  promises  already  in  vogue,  some  light  is  undoubtedly 
thrown  upon  the  meaning  intended  to  have  been  conveyed, 
and  not  improbably  understood.  At  all  events,  the  meaning 
is  susceptible  of  progressive  illumination,  and  is  the  subject 
of  constant  but  gradual  development. 

The  shortest  of  the  minor  prophets  need  only  detain  us 
for  a  moment  before  passing  on  to  him  who  is  the  greatest 
of  all.  Obadiah  concludes  his  very  brief  "vision"  with 

9  Gen.  xxxv.  19. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  113 

the  declaration,  And  the  kingdom  shall  le  the  Lord's,  which 
manifestly  shows  that  he  looked  forward  to  the  setting  up 
of  a  Divine  kingdom  in  a  way  that  is  not  without  its 
bearing  upon  similar  and  innumerable  statements. 

Any  detailed  examination  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  becomes 
impossible  here.  But  it  is  more  requisite  to  consider  his 
writings  in  a  broad  and  general  manner  than  to  attempt  to 
erect  an  argument  on  particular  texts.  There  are  two 
allusions  to  the  throne  of  David  in  Isaiah  which  require 
notice :  that  in  the  ninth  chapter,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
child  that  is  born  whose  name  is  Wonderful,  that  there 
shall  le  no  end  of  the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace 
upon  the  throne  of  David,  but  that  he  shall  order  it  and 
establish  it  for  ever;  and  that  in  the  fifty -fifth  chapter, 
where  it  is  said,  /  will  make  an  everlasting  covenant  with 
you,  even  the  sure  mercies  of  David.  It  matters  not  now  in 
the  slightest  degree  whether  these  two  passages  are  by  the 
same  writer,  as  I  believe  they  are,  or  not.  If  there  was  an 
interval  of  a  century  and  a  half,  or  two  centuries,  between 
them,  the  second  is  virtually  the  endorsement  of  the  first. 
Whatever  was  meant  by  the  sure  mercies  of  David  cannot 
have  been  very  different  from  the  hope  which  centred  in 
an  occupant  of  the  throne  of  David  who  should  order  and 
establish  it  for  ever.  Whether  such  epithets  as  Wonderful, 
Counsellor*,  Mighty  God,  Father  of  eternity,  Prince  of  Peace, 
can  ever  have  been  intended  for  any  child  of  Ahaz,  or  have 
been  appropriated  by  him  or  his  people,  we  must  determine 
with  ourselves ;  but,  in  the  face  of  other  considerations 
already  enumerated,  it  seems  at  least  possible  that  they 
might  have  been  otherwise  understood,  and  at  all  events 
they  do  not  stand  alone,  but  are  parts  of  a  complex  and 
elaborate  whole.  If  the  second  allusion  is  Isaiah's  own, 
then  it  has  all  the  force  of  an  authentic  comment  on  the 
former  one,  and  if  it  is  not,  then  it  still  possesses  an 
independent  value  as  an  instance  of  deliberate  recurrence 

I 


114  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

to  the  previous  idea,  of  refusal  to  acknowledge  any  failure 
in  the  former  promise  notwithstanding  its  extraordinary 
language,  and  of  postponement  of  its  realisation  to  the  yet 
distant  and  conditional  future. 

There  is,  however,  yet  more  manifest  proof  that  Isaiah 
looked  for  the  realisation  of  the  Davidic  promises  in  a 
particular  person,  from  the  remarkable  prophecy  which 
immediately  follows  his  denunciation  of  the  Assyrian  army 
in  the  tenth  chapter,  when  he  says  that  there  shall  come 
forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall 
grow  out  of  his  roots ;  and  further,  that  this  root  of  Jesse 
shall  stand  for  an  ensign  of  the  people,  that  unto  it  shall  the 
Gentiles  seek,  and  that  his  rest  shall  le  glory.  It  is  simply 
absurd  to  suppose  that  the  prophet  could  have  had  in  his 
mind  any  existing  scion  of  the  royal  house,  or  that  his 
glowing  language,  coupled  as  it  was  with  inappropriate 
and  unintelligible  promises  about  the  recovery  of  the 
remnant  of  his  people,  was  intended  to  be  understood  of 
any  present  or  actual  king.  The  visions  of  returning 
prosperity  to  his  afflicted  land  may  have  led  him  to  adopt 
exuberant  language,  but  that  language  became  the  soil  in 
which  a  germ  was  imbedded  that  could  find  no  adequate 
field  for  its  development  in  existing  or  probable  circum- 
stances. For  nothing  less  than  the  return  of  the  condition 
of  paradise  was  associated  with  the  growth  of  this  branch 
out  of  the  roots  of  Jesse.  It  is,  indeed,  possible  to  affirm, 
with  some  show  of  truth,  that  the  glowing  visions  of  the 
prophet  have  never  been  fulfilled,  and  are  only  visions; 
but  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  their  meaning  was  exhausted 
in  any  anticipations  he  may  have  cherished  of  present  or 
immediate  prosperity.  We  can  only  decide,  in  accordance 
with  reason  and  common  sense,  that  another  page  was 
being  added  in  these  mysterious  utterances  to  those  de- 
clarations already  in  existence  which  spoke  of  a  distant 
glory  for  the  house  of  David. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  1 1 5 

In  further  proof  also  that  such  expressions  were  meant 
to  be  understood  of  the  indefinite  future  and  not  of  any 
actual  definite  present,  we  may  refer  to  the  32d  and  the 
35th  chapters,  the  former  of  which  speaks  of  a  king 
reigning  in  righteousness,  and  describes  the  character  of 
his  kingdom  in  language  that  is  singularly  unmeaning,  if 
interpreted  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  The  anticipations 
of  good,  however,  are  not  unmixed  with  forebodings  of  evil, 
and  it  is  not  until  the  Spirit  be  poured  from  on  high  that 
judgment  is  to  dwell  in  the  wilderness  and  righteousness 
to  remain  in  the  fruitful  field. 

But  nowhere  more  conspicuously  than  in  the  35th 
chapter  does  the  language  of  the  prophet,,  whoever  he 
was,  transcend  all  possible  reference  to  the  circumstances 
of  his  own  time.  It  can  only  be  interpreted  of  that  day 
of  the  Lord,  when  the  good  things  promised  to  the  house 
of  David  shall  have  been  fulfilled;  then  it  is  that  the 
ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  return,  and  come  to  Zion  with 
songs  and  everlasting  joy  upon  their  heads ;  then  it  is  that 
they  shall  obtain  joy  and  gladness,  and  sorrow  and  sighing 
shall  flee  away. 

Nor  must  we  forget  that  if  we  are  to  discover  in  existing 
circumstances  the  full  explanation  of  the  prophet's  language, 
we  can  only  do  so  by  depriving  him  of  the  peculiar  charac- 
teristics of  his  office,  which  was  certainly  recognised  in  his 
own  day,  as  we  learn  from  the  testimony  of  contemporary 
history.  He  was  regarded  as  a  person  standing  in  a  special 
relation  to  God,  and  having  special  access  to  the  knowledge 
of  His  will.  This  estimate  of  his  position,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  requires  to  be  accounted  for,  and  we  cannot  account 
for  it  on  the  assumption  that  those  utterances  of  his  which 
we  can  see  to  be  unintelligible  presented  no  mystery,  but 
were  clear  and  commonplace  to  the  men  of  his  own  time ; 
because,  then,  why  should  he  have  been  reckoned  as  a 
prophet  or  as  an  exponent  of  the  will  of  God  ? 


1 1 6  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

That  the  national  estimate  of  Isaiah's  mission  may  have 
been  false  is  conceivable ;  but,  judging  from  the  evidence 
before  us  of  the  part  he  played,  and  from  the  works  he 
has  left  behind  him,  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  affirm  this, 
and  we  cannot  account  for  his  prophecies  on  the  assumption 
that  he  was  no  prophet,  when  the  very  feature  of  them 
which  requires  to  be  explained  is  their  apparently  pro- 
phetical character.  It  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  the 
natural  tendency  of  his  language  must  have  been  to  arouse 
anticipations  in  the  minds  of  the  people  which  were 
certainly  not  realised  in  the  present  nor  in  the  immediate 
future,  and  which  in  fact  seemed  to  grow  in  brilliancy  as 
the  political  horizon  became  darker. 

In  like  manner  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  latter 
portion  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  no  matter  when  it  was 
written,  contributed  certain  original  elements,  which,  taken 
in  connection  with  others  already  in  existence,  may  have 
combined  to  make  the  hope  of  deliverance  to  come  yet 
more  ardent.  Here  it  is  that  we  meet  with  the  well- 
known  phrase,  the,  servant  of  the  Lord.  It  is  manifest 
that  Isaiah's  use  of  this  phrase  varies.  Sometimes  it  is 
distinctly  applied  to  the  prophet  himself;1  sometimes  it  is 
as  evidently  a  personification  of  the  people  at  large,  as  in 
xliv.  1,  Yet  now  hear,  0  Jacob,  my  servant,  and  Israel  whom 
I  have  chosen.  But  there  are  other  occasions  when  it  is 
impossible  that  either  one  or  the  other  can  be  meant.  For 
example,  the  delineation  of  the  Lord's  servant  at  the 
commencement  of  chapter  xlii.  can  only  with  violence 
be  interpreted  of  the  nation  at  large :  Behold  my  servant, 
whom  I  uphold ;  mine  elect,  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth : 
I  have  put  my  Spirit  upon  him  ;  he  shall  bring  forth  judg- 
ment to  the  Gentiles.  He  shall  not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor 
cause  his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street.  A  bruised  reed 
shall  he  not  break,  and  the  smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench  : 
1  Cf.  xliv.  26;  xlix.  5;  1.  10. 


iv.J  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  117 

he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  unto  truth.  He  shall  not  fail 
nor  be  discouraged,  till  he  have  set  judgment  in  the  earth  : 
and  the  isles  shall  wait  for  his  law.  Is  it  possible  to  main- 
tain that  if  this  was  intended  to  be  understood  of  the  nation 
at  large,  it  was  intended  to  be  so  understood  apart  from 
that  clear  notion  of  a  successor  to  David's  throne  already 
known  to  be  in  existence  ?  Can  we  suppose  that  the 
anticipations  of  the  32d  chapter  were  intended  to  be 
severed  from  those  of  the  42d?  If  the  interval  of  a 
century  and  a  half  elapsed  between  the  production  of 
the  two,  is  it  probable  that  in  the  mind  of  the  people 
they  would  not  be  associated  ?  Is  it  likely  that  the  later 
writer,  granting  his  existence,  and  granting  also,  as  we 
must  grant,  his  acquaintance  with  the  materials  already 
at  hand,  and  his  conscious  participation  in  the  same  pro- 
phetic office  with  those  who  had  gone  before  him,  should 
have  spoken  as  he  did,  and  given  utterance  to  a  hope  for 
his  nation  at  large  which  he  deliberately  disconnected  from 
the  long-cherished  hope  of  the  promised  scion  of  the  house 
of  David  ? 

The  known  phenomena  of  prophecy,  judging  from  the 
monuments  before  us,  forbid  the  assumption  of  the  pro- 
phetic utterances  being  thus  isolated  and  independent ;  or, 
even  if  they  do  not,  the  effect  produced  by  the  work  as  a 
whole,  which  is  like  that  of  the  perspective  in  painting, 
is  such  as  to. make  it  difficult  without  violence  to  disregard 
the  apparent  relation  of  the  parts. 

We  are,  however,  at  all  events,  at  liberty  to  assume  a 
certain  amount  of  unity  in  the  latter  chapters  of  Isaiah, 
which,  for  special  reasons,  we  must  not  presuppose  in  the 
work  as  a  whole.  And  thus  it  will  probably  not  be  denied 
that  the  figure  of  the  Lord's  servant  in  chapter  xlii.  is 
resumed  in  the  52d  and  53d  chapters.  In  the  mind  of 
the  writer  it  was  one  and  the  same  image,  whatever  in  his 
own  mind  he  may  have  understood,  or  have  intended  others 


1 1 8  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

to  understand  by  it.  Let  it,  however,  be  granted  that  the 
idea  in  the  prophet's  own  mind  was  that  of  the  nation  as 
the  ideal  servant  of  the  Lord.  Then  he  has  for  the  first 
time  sketched  this  ideal  under  peculiar  aspects.  He  who 
before  was  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles,  while 
the  isles  were  to  wait  for  his  law,  is  now  seen  in  the 
character  of  one  who  suffers  for  the  sake  of  others,  who  is 
unjustly  afflicted  and  oppressed,  who  is  led  as  a  sheep  to 
the  slaughter,  and  whose  soul  is  made  an  offering  for  sin ; 
who,  while  he  is  numbered  with  the  transgressors,  yet 
bears  the  sin  of  many,  and  makes  intercession  for  the 
transgressors.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  this  is  altogether 
a  novel  and  original  conception.  The  germ  of  it  may 
possibly  be  found  in  some  of  the  Psalms,  with  which  the 
writer  may  have  been  familiar,  but  nowhere  is  the  picture 
so  elaborately  drawn  and  so  highly  coloured  as  here.  It  is 
not  to  be  denied  also,  that,  whether  or  not  the  servant  of 
the  Lord  here  is  identical  with  that  in  chapter  xlii.,  it  is  in 
the  strongest  possible  contrast  to  the  visions  of  royal  glory 
that  were  supposed  to  be  reserved  for  the  house  of  David. 
The  picture  is  altogether  of  another  kind;  and  yet  it  is 
said  of  this  man,  with  a  strange  combination  of  images, 
that  he  shall  see  his  seed,  and  shall  prolong  his  days,  and 
that  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  So 
that,  as  the  line  of  David  was  to  have  long  life  and  a 
numerous  posterity,2  and  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of 
God,  so  was  it  also  with  this  servant  of  the  Lord.  It  cannot 
also  be  maintained  that  such  a  portrait  as  this  was  sketched 
from  the  life :  there  was  no  one  in  the  nation  or  among  the 
prophets  who  may  have  sat  for  it.  For  if  so,  it  is  very 
singular  that  all  memory  of  him  should  have  passed  away. 
The  picture,  marvellous  as  it  is  as  a  work  of  art,  is  evi- 
dently an  ideal  conception,  and  as  such  was  an  entirely 
new  contribution  to  the  gallery  of  ideals  already  in  ex- 

2  Psalm  Ixxxix.  36. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  119 

istence,  which  took  its  place  by  their  side,  and  would 
eventually  establish  its  relation  to  them,  or  be  rejected  as 
an  incongruous  and  irrelevant  addition. 

No  sooner,  however,  has  the  prophet  sketched  the  portrait 
of  the  Lord's  servant,  and  drawn  that  picture  of  his  ideal 
sorrow,  which  is  unique  in  Scripture,  than  he  bursts  forth 
with  the  expression  of  triumphant  joy,  and  declares  that 
the  barren  woman  shall  become  fruitful  and  her  seed  inherit 
the  Gentiles.  Indeed,  it  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
characteristics  of  this  writer  that  he  distinctly  declares  an 
unlimited  field  for  the  mission  of  Israel.  It  is  a  light  thing 
that  thou  shouldest  be  my  servant  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob, 
and  to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel ;  I  will  also  give  thee 
for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation 
unto  the  end  of  the  earth?  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to 
thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising*  I  am 
sought  of  them  that  asked  not  for  me,  and  I  am  found  of 
them  that  sought  me  not.  I  said,  Behold  me,  behold  me,  unto 
a  nation  that  was  not  called  by  my  name.5  Such  language 
as  this  is  expressive  of  some  hope  and  of  some  conviction 
in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  What  does  it  mean  ?  We  can 
only  take  it  in  connection  with  other  hopes  he  has  himself 
expressed  for  the  house  of  David;  in  fact  any  hopes  for 
the  nation  would,  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  have  centred 
in  hopes  for  the  national  throne.  However  great  the 
humiliation  of  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  it  is  to  be  suc- 
ceeded and  surpassed  by  his  exaltation  and  glory,  whether 
that  servant  is  the  nation  at  large,  or  the  prophet  himself, 
or  an  ideal  personage  but  dimly  discerned  in  vision. 

And  thus  far  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  writings  of 
this  prophet,  whenever  they  were  produced,  contributed 
greatly  to  the  development  of  ideas  existent  already  in 
germ;  and  that  while  they  by  no  means  repudiated  the 
ancient  expectations  that  had  been  cherished  for  the  house 

3  Is.  xlix.  6.  *  lx.  3.  5  Ixv.  1. 


I2O  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

of  David,  they  originated  a  far  more  spiritual  conception 
of  the  ideal  servant  of  the  Lord,  who,  after  being  chastened 
and  afflicted  as  an  offering  for  the  sin  of  others,  was  to  be 
exalted  to  universal  and  world-wide  dominion.  The  proof 
of  this  is  in  every  one's  hands ;  it  is  patent  and  undeniable, 
and  alike  independent  of  questions  arising  from  critical 
interpretation,  from  the  date  of  composition,  and  from 
uncertainty  of  authorship.  Can  the  phenomena  presented 
be  accounted  for  naturally  ?  Do  they  exhibit  the  natural 
and  obvious  development  of  one  idea  ?  Is  the  servant  of 
the  Lord  in  Isaiah  the  natural  product  of  the  son  of  David 
in  the  Psalms  ?  Admitting  that  the  form  assumed  by  the 
one  was  purely  natural,  was  the  later  form  it  took  in  the 
other  such  as  might  have  been  expected  ?  Is  there  any- 
thing analogous  to  this  gradual  development  of  one  ideal 
in  classical  or  in  any  other  literature  ?  Is  it  not  peculiar 
to  and  unique  in  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament? 
And,  even  if  the  essential  unity  of  the  several  ideas  be 
called  in  question,  their  essential  and  distinctive  character 
is  not  to  be  denied.  We  may  still  deal  with  them  as 
separate  elements,  and  note  their  historic  rise  at  different 
epochs  of  the  national  history;  the  patriarchal  idea  in 
patriarchal  times ;  the  royal  idea  when  the  crown  was 
brightest  and  most  glorious ;  the  idea  of  a  universal  law- 
giver when  the  mind  of  the  prophet  was  fixed  on  the 
nation's  return  to  the  free  exercise  of  its  ancestral  laws ; 
but  it  will,  after  all,  be  the  possible  consistency  of  these 
various  thoughts,  their  possible  relation  to  one  another, 
and  their  mutual  completeness,  that  we  shall  have  to 
account  for;  and  in  endeavouring  to  account  for  this  it 
will  not  be  easy  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  design,  when 
it  is  obvious  that  the  actual  result  produced  is  precisely 
that  which  design  alone  would  account  for. 

The  peculiar  position  of  the  ancient  prophet  receives  a 
distinct  and  vivid  illustration  from  the  personal  history  of 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  121 

Jeremiah.  We  see  very  plainly  his  extreme  reluctance  to 
undertake  his  office,  the  sense  of  deep  responsibility  under 
which  he  laboured,  the  conviction  from  which  he  was 
unable  to  escape,  that  the  work  he  had  to  do  was  imposed 
by  God.  He  would  fain  have  held  his  peace,  but  the  word 
of  the  Lord  was  unto  him  as  a  burning  fire  shut  up  in  his 
bones,  and  he  was  weary  with  forbearing,  and  could  not  stay? 
This  sense  of  an  imperative  and  inevitable  mission,  extra- 
ordinary as  it  was,  which  characterised  the  ancient  prophets, 
must  be  allowed  to  lend  considerable  weight  to  what  they 
say.  Their  sincerity  was  unimpeachable,  notwithstanding 
the  extravagance  of  their  assumptions.  People,  and  priest, 
and  king,  moreover,  alike  acknowledged  their  authority, 
even  though  they  might  combine  in  persecuting  them. 

There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  time  that  Jeremiah  prophe- 
sied, neither  is  there  any  doubt  that  he  distinctly  assigned 
the  duration  of  seventy  years  to  the  captivity  at  Babylon. 
The  computation  of  this  period  may  be  a  matter  of  dispute; 
as  to  the  fact  that  it  was  foretold  there  can  be  none.7  It  is 
also  certain  that,  living  as  he  did  at  the  close  of  the  Jewish 
monarchy,  he  spoke  of  a  righteous  branch  being  raised  unto 
David,  and  of  a  king  who  should  reign  and  prosper  ;8  while 
he  joined  with  that  promise  the  assurance  that  Israel  should 
be  brought  back  out  of  the  north  country.  Judging  from 
what  Jeremiah  has  himself  told  us  of  Zedekiah,9  it  is  not 
probable  that  he  should  have  had  him  in  his  mind  when  he 
wrote  thus,  though  it  is  possible  that  his  name  may  have 
suggested  the  words:  The  Lord  our  righteousness.  But, 
anyhow,  we  see  here  a  repetition  of  the  familiar  thought 
of  a  king  being  born  to  David'.  If  we  might  assume  that 
the  writings  of  Isaiah,  as  we  now  have  them,  were  in 
existence,  then  we  could  say  without  hesitation  that  the 
language  of  Isaiah  is  borrowed,  and  the  promise  he  had 

6  Jer.  xx.  9.  1  Ezra  i. ;  Dan.  ix.  2. 

8  Jer.  xxiii.  5-8.  8  xxxvii.  2  seq.,  and  lii.  2. 


122  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT 

given  renewed ;  but,  at  all  events,  we  have  here  from  an 
independent  hand  a  repetition,  whether  earlier  or  later, 
of  the  old  idea. 

And  it  is  impossible  not  to  say  that  the  expectation  of 
future  good  for  Israel  is  expressly  associated  with  that  of 
the  king  who  is  to  be  born  to  David.  The  restoration  of 
Israel  is  to  take  place  in  his  days,  and  Judah  and  Israel 
are  again  to  be  one,  for  we  must  not  forget  that  at  this 
time  Israel  had  no  national  existence.  Now,  the  inter- 
pretation of  this  language  may  be  a  very  difficult  and 
doubtful  matter,  but  as  to  its  literal  meaning  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  This  is  what  the  prophet  said,  whatever  his 
words  meant.  And,  perhaps,  the  clearest  and  most  explicit 
promise  that  yet  existed  in  relation  to  the  expected  heir  of 
David,  was  thus  added  to  all  that  had  gone  before.  Psalms 
like  the  72d,  the  89th,  the  132d,  and  others,  received  a  new 
meaning  when  language  such  as  this  was  uttered  by  a  man 
in  the  position  of  Jeremiah,  who  claimed  and  was  acknow- 
ledged to  be  a  prophet  of  the  Lord.  It  is  manifest  that  the 
original  thought  was  becoming  clearer  and  more  definite ; 
it  was  undergoing  development ;  it  was  a  growing  con- 
ception, and  each  age  and  epoch  contributed  to  its  growth, 
each  prophet  added  something  of  distinctness  to  the  original 
idea.  And  yet,  what  the  full  idea  was  to  be  no  single 
prophet  knew,  and  no  single  age  could  tell  what  was  or 
was  not  reserved  for  its  own  epoch  to  produce.  The  fulness 
of  time  alone  could  show  whether  the  aggregate  was  com- 
plete, or  whether  more  was  still  waiting  to  be  added. 

This  promise  also  is  the  more  remarkable  from  the  fact 
that  it  presents  a  strong  contrast  to  the  other  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah,  and  from  the  circumstance  of  its  being  reiterated 
and  expanded  by  him,  subseqently,  when  he  was  shut  up 
in  the  court  of  the  prison.1  His  prophecies  generally  have 
more  of  a  domestic  and  local  character,  and  are  concerned 

1  Chap,  xxxiii.  15-26. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  123 

rather  with  the  immediate  destiny  of  his  people ;  but  here 
he  takes  a  much  wider  range,  and  looks  forward  to  the 
remotest  future,  and  declares  that  the  covenant  with  day 
and  night  shall  be  broken  before  David  shall  want  a  son 
to  reign  upon  his  throne.  And  yet  this  is  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  promise  of  the  branch  of  righteousness 
that  is  to  grow  up  unto  David,  in  whose  days  Judah  shall 
be  saved,  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  safely.  That  is  to  say, 
at  the  very  time  when  the  throne  of  David  was  tottering 
to  its  fall,  and  its  last  occupant  was  passing  away  into 
captivity,  a  man,  who  felt  himself  compelled  to  declare  the 
message  of  the  Lord  in  spite  of  all  inward  reluctance  and 
of  all  outward  opposition,  is  found  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  affirming  his  belief  in  the  ancient  promises,  and 
consoling  his  nation  with  the  prospect  of  their  fulfilment, 
when,  humanly  speaking,  there  was  none. 

For  the  moment,  then,  we  must  hold  our  judgment  in 
suspense  as  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  such  prophecies,  and 
confine  our  attention  to  the  undoubted  fact  of  their  exis- 
tence as  part  of  the  literary  and  prophetic  inheritance 
with  which  the  people  went  into  captivity.  There  can  be 
no  question  that  at  that  time,  as  far  as  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  and  psalmists  had  influenced  the  nation,  it  was 
more  than  warranted  in  expecting  a  restoration  of  the 
throne  of  David  in  the  person  of  some  one  who  should 
unite  in  himself  the  various  characteristics  that  had  been 
assigned  to  his  ideal  representative  and  heir.  And  with 
this  expectation  rife  among  the  people,  the  monarchy 
collapsed,  and  the  nation  was  carried  captive  to  Babylon. 

We  pass  on  now  to  the  prophets  of  the  return,  beginning 
with  Haggai,  in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  or  about  fifteen 
years  after  the  foundation  of  the  second  temple.  With 
the  circumstances  of  that  foundation  we  are  familiar,  from 
the  touching  narrative  in  the  second  chapter  of  Ezra,  which 
is  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  words  of  Haggai :  Who 


124  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

is  left  among  you  that  saw  this  house  in  her  first  glory  ? 
sixty-eight  years  before ;  and  how  do  ye,  see  it  now  ?  is  it 
not  in  your  eyes  in  comparison  of  it  as  nothing  ? 

And  this  comparative  inferiority  of  the  second  temple 
was  made  the  basis  of  a  very  striking  promise,  that  the 
glory  of  the  latter  house  should  be  greater  than  the  glory  of 
the  former,  and  that  in  it  the  Lord  would  give  peace.  We 
may  omit  altogether  the  disputed  words  about  the  desire  of 
all  nations  coming,  because,  as  it  happens,  they  in  no  way 
affect  the  material  sense,  however  much  to  understand  them 
of  a  person  rather  than  of  material  wealth  may  heighten  it ; 
for  here  is  the  distinct  assertion  that  the  second  house  shall 
surpass  the  former  one  in  glory,  and  that  apparently  because 
peace  shall  be  given  in  it.  Two  points,  however,  must  be 
borne  in  mind — first,  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which 
was  the  special  glory  of  the  first  temple,  did  not  exist  in 
the  second,  and  consequently  the  declaration  of  the  prophet 
was  the  more  daring ;  and  secondly,  that,  daring  as  it  was, 
he  confirmed  it  in  the  most  solemn  manner  possible,  on  his 
faith  as  a  prophet,  by  the  five-times-reiterated  declaration, 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  there- 
fore, that  this  statement  was  made  as  a  substantive  addition 
to  the  prophetic  elements  already  in  existence,  and  would 
be  so  regarded  by  the  people  who  recognised  the  mission 
of  Haggai. 

About  the  same  time  arose  another  prophet,  Zechariah, 
who  likewise  took  part  in  encouraging  the  work  of  Zerub- 
babel  in  building  the  second  temple.  He  maintained  and 
illustrated  the  continuity  of  the  prophetic  succession  after 
the  captivity,  by  reviving  in  his  prophecies  two  of  the 
most  prominent  images  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  For  more 
than  two  generations  Jeremiah's  promise  of  the  coming 
Branch  had  lain  in  abeyance,  with  no  apparent  hope  of 
fulfilment.  And,  under  any  view  of  Isaiah's  epoch,  his 
famous  prophecies  and  portrait  of  the  servant  of  the  Lord 


iv.]  The  CJirist  of  Prophecy.  125 

must  have  been  in  existence  now,  and  were  "beyond  all 
doubt  familiar  to  Zechariah.  With  these  materials,  then, 
ready  to  hand,  he  represents  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  saying 
to  Joshua  the  high  priest,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
Behold  I  will  bring  forth  (literally,  Behold  me  bringing  in) 
my  servant  the  Branch;'2'  and  describing  the  era  of  his 
advent  as  a  time  of  ideal  peace  and  prosperity.  This 
promise  which  is  first  given,  or  apparently  given  by  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord,  is  subsequently  repeated  by  the  prophet 
himself  to  Joshua  the  high  priest,  in  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
with  a  slight  variation  : — Thus  speaketh  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
saying,  Behold  the  man  whose  name  is  the  Branch :  and  he 
shall  grow  up  out  of  his  place,  and  he  shall  build  the  temple 
of  the  Lord,  which  was  now  nearly  finished :  Even  he  shall 
build  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  bear  the  glory,  and 
shall  sit  and  rule  upon  his  throne  ;  and  he  shall  be  a  priest 
upon  his  throne,  and  the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between 
them  both;3  that  is,  apparently,  between  the  priest  and  the 
king,  which  twofold  office  this  man  whose  name  is  the 
Branch  is  to  unite  and  fulfil  in  his  own  person.  It  is 
hardly  possible  to  doubt  that  such  words  were  spoken 
and  recorded  not  only  with  full  knowledge  of,  but  with 
intentional  reference  to,  what  had  been  said  before  by 
Jeremiah,  by  Isaiah,  and  perhaps  by  David  in  the  110th 
Psalm.  Even  if  there  was  no  conscious  and  designed 
allusion  to  their  statements,  which  we  cannot  prove,  the 
mere  fact  of  the  remarkable  manner  in  which  the  several 
utterances  fit  into  and  sustain  each  other,  is  a  phenomenon 
not  a  little  extraordinary,  and  one  which  may  be  in  a  high 
degree  significant. 

The  independent  character  also  of  Zechariah's  prophecy 
is  seen  in  this,  that  whereas  the  last  words  of  Haggai  were 
addressed  to  Zerubbabel,and  were  fraught  with  a  blessing  for 
him  as  the  representative  of  the  house  of  Judah,  Zechariah's 

2  Zech.  iii.  8.  3  Zech.  vi.  12,  13. 


126  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

promise  of  the  Branch  was  twice  given  to  Joshua  the  high 
priest,  and  the  first  time  was  coupled  with  a  personal 
promise  to  him.  This  circumstance  is  perhaps  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  central  promise  in  either  case  was  intended 
to  be  kept  distinct  from  the  particular  person  to  whom  it 
was  immediately  given.  Both  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua 
must  necessarily  have  had  their  thoughts  directed  to  some 
one  else.  Neither  could  have  supposed  that  the  prophet's 
language  ended  in  himself,  or  that  the  personal  blessings 
announced  were  all  that  was  declared. 

The  critical  questions  connected  with  the  last  six 
chapters  of  Zechariah  are  so  intricate  that  they  need  not 
detain  us  here.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  in  these  chapters, 
whenever  they  were  written,  there  are  three  remarkable 
passages  which  must  not  altogether  be  passed  by.  The 
first  is — Rejoice  greatly,  0  daughter  of  Zion ;  shout,  0 
daughter  of  Jerusalem :  behold,  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee  : 
he  is  just,  and  having  salvation  ;  lowly,  and  riding  upon  an 

ass,  and  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass And  he  shall 

speak  peace  unto  the  heathen  ;  and  his  dominion  shall  be  from 
sea  even  to  sea,  and  from  the,  river  even  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth*  If  this  was  post-captivity,  there  was  still  a  re- 
currence in  it  to  the  favourite  idea  of  the  universal  king- 
dom, with  an  evident  allusion  to  the  72d  Psalm  ;5  if  it  was 
earlier  than  the  captivity,  then  it  is  impossible  to  refer  it 
with  propriety  to  any  actual  king  ;  besides,  the  time  of  his 
dominion  is  to  be  coeval  with  the  cessation  of  the  chariot 
from  Ephraim,  and  of  the  horse  and  the  battle-bow  from 
Jerusalem ;  in  other  words,  the  national  power  shall  have 
ceased  at  the  time  when  the  rule  of  the  national  king,  who 
is  spoken  of,  commences. 

The  next  passage  is  in  the  twelfth  chapter :  And  I  vrill 
pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications;   and 
4  Zech.  ix.  9,  10.  5  Ps.  Ixxii.  8,  12,  etc. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  127 

they  shall  look  upon  me  whom  they  have  pierced  ;  and  they 
shall  mourn  for  him,  as  one  mourneth  for  his  only  son,  and 
shall  be  in  bitterness  for  him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for 
his  first-born.6  It  is  impossible  that  the  person  here 
spoken  of  can  have  been  the  prophet  himself,  because  he 
was  unable  to  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of 
supplications,  an  essentially  Divine  gift.  The  words, 
therefore,  as  they  stand,  if  thus  understood,  appear  to  have 
no  discoverable  meaning. 

And  hardly  less  mysterious  in  any  aspect  are  those  other 
words  in  the  thirteenth  chapter :  Awake,  0  sword,  against 
my  shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts :  smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be 
scattered :  and  I  will  turn  mine  hand  upon  the  little  ones.1 
If  this  was  post-captivity  there  was  manifestly  no  one  to 
whom  it  could  refer ;  but  it  is  no  less  difficult  to  determine 
to  whom  such  language  is  likely  to  have  been  applied 
by  any  earlier  writer.  There  is  no  instance  of  the  rare 
expression,  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  being  used  of  the 
reigning  monarch;  and  even  if  it  was  so  used  here,  we 
know  not  who  he  could  have  been,  for  there  is  no  one 
whose  history  at  all  corresponds. 

But  whether  these  three  passages  are  by  one  and  the 
same  writer  or  not,  it  is  clear  that  they  all  purport  to  be 
spoken  prophetically  and  in  the  name  of  God.  They  are 
therefore  but  integral  elements  in  the  whole  mass  of  similar 
statements.  They  reproduce  familiar  ideas ;  that,  namely, 
of  dominion  and  glory  in  the  person  of  a  king,  and  that  of 
exceptional  suffering. 

Whether  we  are  right  also  in  grouping  these  and  similar 
statements  together,  it  is  certain  that  there  are  special 
characteristics  common  to  all ;  for  example,  a  peculiar 
obstinacy  in  not  being  readily  intelligible  of  ordinary 

6  Zech.  xii.  10.  1  xiii.  7. 


128  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

known  circumstances,  and  a  certain  facility  of  cohesion, 
which  is  the  more  remarkable,  inasmuch  as  they  are  con- 
fessedly the  production  of  various  writers  and  of  various 
periods. 

Looking,  then,  at  the  writings  of  the  prophets  as  a 
whole,  there  appear  to  be  one,  or  at  the  most  two,  principal 
ideas,  which  gradually  become  more  distinct  and  definite, 
until  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  the  national  literature 
of  the  Jewish  people  contained  clearly-expressed  antici- 
pations of  one  who  should  arise  in  the  house  of  David 
and  restore  his  throne  to  more  than  its  pristine  glory, 
although  these  anticipations  were  at  times  perplexed  and 
interwoven  with  others  of  a  permanent  priesthood,  whether 
or  not  combined  in  the  same  person,  and  with  obscure 
intimations  of  suffering,  degradation,  and  cbath,  which 
were  to  be  undergone.  The  glory,  perhaps,  predominates 
over  the  suffering,  but  of  the  presence  of  the  suffering  as 
an  element  contemplated  there  can  be  no  question;  the 
only  question  at  the  time  even  could  have  been  whether 
the  suffering  was  an  antecedent  condition  of  the  glory  or 
a  totally  distinct  conception. 

There  is,  however,  this  feature  to  be  observed  in  the 
latter  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  which  is  more  consistent, 
perhaps,  with  the  supposition  of  a  later  date  for  their 
origin,  that  the  subject  spoken  of  is  found  to  blend  with 
the  person  of  the  Divine  being ;  and  this  also  is  character- 
istic of  the  latest  of  the  prophetic  utterances — that,  namely, 
in  the  book  of  Malachi.  The  writer  there  says,  speaking 
in  the  name  of  God :  Behold,  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and 
he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me :  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye 
seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of 
the  covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in :  Behold,  he  shall  come,  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts? 

We  must  remember  that  this  passage  undoubtedly  comes 

8  Mai.  iii.  1. 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  129 

after  the  entire  bulk  of  prophetic  enunciations  that  we 
have  been  considering  was  in  existence.  The  second 
temple  was  built ;  Haggai's  promise  concerning  it  had 
been  given ;  Malachi  was  no  doubt  familiar  with  it  and 
with  all  the  recorded  sayings  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  Zecha- 
riah,  David,  and  the  rest.  Speaking,  then,  late  in  time  as 
he  did,  Malachi  said :  The  Lwd,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly 
come  to  his  temple.  The  expected  advent  of  a  glorious  king 
is  in  abeyance.  It  is  now  the  Lord  himself  who  is  to  come 
to  His  temple,  and  fulfil  the  former  promise  of  giving  peace 
in  it.  He  is  to  come  as  a  judge.  If  He  is  not  to  come  as 
a  priest,  He  is  at  any  rate  to  purify  the  sons  of  Levi,  and 
purge  them  as  gold  and  silver,  that  they  may  offer  unto 
the  Lord  an  offering  in  righteousness. 

If  the  earlier  prophetic  notion  of  a  great  king  is  foreign 
to  the  writings  of  Malachi,  we  cannot  say  that  his  concep- 
tion of  the  future  glory  is  in  any  sense  inferior  to  that; 
on  the  contrary,  it  seems  even  to  surpass  it ;  for  the  person 
who  is  to  come  is  called  the  Lord,9  and  the  place  whither 
He  is  to  come  is  called  His  temple.  He  is  also  apparently 
identified  with  the  messenger  of  the  covenant,  a  phrase 
which  most  probably  contains  an  allusion  to  the  Angel  of 
His  presence  mentioned  in  Isaiah,1  who  is  represented  as 
having  interposed  on  behalf  of  the  nation  at  various  critical 
periods  of  their  history. 

We  seem,  therefore,  to  be  justified  in  saying  that  in  the 
time  of  Malachi  the  national  hope,  so  far  as  he  expressed  it, 
had  become  more  elevated  and  spiritualised.  The  earthly 
metaphors  were  dropped;  temporal  power  and  rule  were 
forgotten.  The  Lord  Himself  was  a  great  king,  whose 
name  was  dreadful  among  the  heathen :  the  Lord  Himself 
was  the  hope  of  His  people,  and  to  those  who  feared  His 
name  the  Sun  of  righteousness  would  arise  with  healing 
in  his  wings.  If  this  is  so,  the  former  words,  They  shall 

!  Is.  ixiii.  9. 

K 


130  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

look  on  me  whom  they  pierced,  acquire  a  fresh  significance, 
to  say  nothing  of  those  others,  Awake,  0  sword,  against  my 
shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  intention  of 
the  several  writers,  the  combined  phenomena  presented  by 
their  writings  cannot  fail  to  strike  us  as  very  remarkable ; 
and  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  imagine  that  Malachi,  the 
latest  writer  of  all,  was  not  conditioned  by  what  had  gone 
before,  and  is  not  to  be  understood  accordingly. 

There  remains,  however,  yet  one  collection  of  writings 
which  must  be  noticed,  because,  whatever  its  date,  it  throws 
considerable  light  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  rest,  and 
this  is  the  book  of  Daniel.  Starting  with  the  assumption 
that  this  book  may  be  as  late  as  the  second  century  before 
Christ,  we  are  yet  led  by  it  to  certain  conclusions  with 
respect  to  other  prophetic  writings  that  it  is  difficult  to  set 
aside.  For  example,  it  is  certain  that  in  Daniel  we  meet 
with  the  use  of  a  particular  term  which  cannot  be  ambig- 
uous any  longer.  In  the  second  century  before  Christ,  then, 
at  the  latest,  a  writer  could  be  understood  who  spoke  of 
Prince  Messiah,  and  of  Messiah  being  cut  off.2  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  by  this  time  the  conception  of  a  person  who 
should  fulfil  in  himself  the  several  conditions  going  to 
make  up  whatever  was  meant  by  Messiah  was  fully  de- 
veloped, or  else  that  he  originated  its  full  development. 
This  latter  alternative,  however,  is  not  likely.  The  writer, 
no  doubt,  appealed  to  a  condition  of  thought  already  exist- 
ing. In  his  time  the  conception  of  a  Messiah  was  fully 
formed,  and  any  allusion  to  -it  was  intelligible.  But  how 
could  this  be,  were  it  not  for  the  materials  out  of  which 
such  a  conception  could  alone  be  formed  already  existing 
in  the  national  literature  ?  The  term  Messiah  was  one 
which  had  been  applied  to  kings,  prophets,  and  priests,  in 
former  times ;  but  here  we  find  an  entirely  different  use  of 

2  Dan.  ix.  25,  26. 


iv.j  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  1 3 1 

it,  as  it  was  applied  to  an  ideal  person  whose  advent  is  yet 
future.  This  person  is  himself  pre-eminently  Messiah: 
he  is  called  Prince  Messiah.3  He  cannot  be  any  one  of 
those  persons  to  whom  the  term  has  been  applied  officially 
before.  He  must  be  one  to  whom  it  is  more  applicable 
than  to  any. 

The  belief,  then,  in  the  advent  of  such  a  person  must 
have  been  mature  and  definite,  but  it  could  only  have  been 
so  because  it  had  been  fostered  and  inculcated  by  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  and  the  national  literature.  There 
must,  therefore,  have  been  that  in  the  literature  which  was 
capable  of  fostering  it.  The  writings  of  the  prophets  must 
have  been  understood  in  such  a  way  that  they  furnished  a 
groundwork  for  the  support  of  the  notion.  The  matter  is 
not  at  all  one  of  opinion;  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  fact. 
It  is  not  a  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  any  such  ideas 
being  derived  from  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  but  a 
matter  of  fact  that  they  were  so  derived ;  and  of  this  the 
evidence  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  whenever  that  book  was 
written,  is  conclusive. 

Nor  does  the  question  of  date  materially  affect  the  issue, 
because  here,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Christ,  is 
the  evidence  that  the  prophets  were  thus  understood.  This 
was  the  long  result  of  their  education  of  the  national  mind. 
They  had  led  the  people  up  to  this  position.  And  it  was 
not  the  work  of  one  writer,  but  of  many.  There  is  good 
ground,  then,  for  a  strong  presumption  that  this,  which  was 
the  combined  effect  produced  by  many  writers,  was  more 
or  less  nearly  the  particular  effect  which  they  intended  to 
produce.  If,  therefore,  we  find  one  writer  deliberately 
adopting  the  language  and  images  of  an  earlier  one,  we 
can  only  infer  that  he  did  it  with  the  intention  of  adopting 
and  expanding  his  meaning.  And  when  this  is  done  by 
many  writers  successively,  and  the  final  result  is  what  it 


132  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

proves  to  be,  we  can  only  conclude  that  the  result  corre- 
sponded with  the  object  which  the  writers  had  in  view. 
They  did  intend  their  language  to  produce  and  cherish  the 
hope  that  a  deliverer  would  arise  in  the  house  of  David ; 
and  the  people  were  warranted  in  investing  him  with  the 
various  attributes  which  the  several  writers  assigned  to 
him.  When  Daniel  spoke  of  Prince  Messiah,  he  virtually 
added  his  endorsement  to  all  that  had  been  promised  to  the 
throne  of  David,  while  he  gave  also  an  unmistakable  proof 
of  the  manner  in  which  he  had  received  and  understood 
those  promises. 

The  book  of  Daniel,  then,  on  any  supposition  of  its  date 
and  authorship,  is  a  witness  to  the  historic  development 
of  the  Messianic  conception.  In  the  second  century 
before  Christ  we  find  the  notion  of  Messiah  as  a  coming 
Prince  accepted  and  in  vogue.  How  much  earlier  it  may 
have  been,  we  are  unable  to  say,  but  here  at  any  rate  it 
was  then.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  a  popular  notion  such  as 
this  can  only  have  been  of  gradual  and  protracted  growth. 
It  could  not  have  started  into  existence  suddenly;  and 
looking  over  the  various  stages  of  the  national  literature, 
as  they  are  indicated  with  sufficient  accuracy  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  we  can  trace  the 
different  stages  of  its  growth.  We  can  see  how  stone  by 
stone  was  added  by  one  writer  after  another,  till  the  edifice 
assumed  the  definite  shape  and  outline  which  are  con- 
.spicuous  in  the  writings  of  Daniel. 

Of  course  if  we  decide,  as  we  very  reasonably  may, 
upon  the  genuineness  of  that  book,  then  the  considerations 
already  mentioned  receive  additional  weight.  Then  the 
writings  of  Zechariah  and  Malachi  must  have  been  pro- 
duced in  the  knowledge  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  and 
must  be  interpreted  accordingly ;  but  as  all  these  writings 
were  unquestionably  in  existence  in  their  present  form  in 
the  second  century  before  Christ,  that  is  more  than  enough 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  133 

for  our  purpose,  inasmuch  as  we  know  that  then  the  actual 
historic  result  produced  "by  the  various  characteristics  of 
the  prophetical  writings  was  the  anticipation  in  the  national 
mind  of  a  person  to  come  who  could  be  spoken  of  intelli- 
gibly as  Messiah  the  Prince.  It  matters  not  whether  all 
the  notions  connected  with  that  idea  were  in  strict  accord 
and  harmony;  they  cannot  have  been.  The  conceptions 
may  have  been  conflicting  and  contradictory ;  they  could 
scarcely  be  otherwise,  if  the  elements  that  gave  rise  to 
them  were  realities  manifesting  an  historical  growth,  and 
assignable  to  different  epochs  and  to  various  minds. 

To  sum  up,  then,  what  has  hitherto  been  said. — We  have 
treated  the  existing  literature,  and  the  several  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  we  should  treat  any  other  literary 
documents.  We  have  endeavoured  to  estimate  them  only 
as  an  honest  examination  of  the  features  they  present 
obliges  us  to  estimate  them.  We  have  assumed  nothing 
in  their  favour.  We  have  conceded  hypothetically  almost 
every,  if  not  every,  position  that  has  been  debated,  which 
might  tend  to  modify  the  conclusion  to  be  arrived  at.  And 
what  is  the  result  ?  It  is  this  :  that  at  least  in  the  second 
century  before  Christ,  and  most  probably  in  the  sixth,  the 
conception  of  a  Messiah  had  attained  so  much  consistency 
and  solidity  among  the  Jewish  nation,  that  we  find  in 
writings  of  one  period  or  the  other,  and  for  argument's 
sake  it  matters  not  which,  a  usage  of  the  word  which  can 
only  be  understood  of  an  ideal  and  a  future  person.  Such 
an  application  of  the  term  is  conclusive  proof  of  the  popular 
existence  of  the  notion.  We  are  not  concerned  now  with 
the  character  of  the  notion,  or  the  form  it  had  assumed. 
Here  it  was  in  actual  and  living  reality.  It  was  a  thing 
which  had  found  expression  in  a  word.  It  was  a  thought 
which  had  become  crystallised  and  formulated  in  speech. 
What  was  the  origin  of  that  thought  ?  Taking  the  book 
of  Daniel  hypothetically,  as  the  latest  expression  of  it,  we 


134  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  [LECT. 

find  it  present  to  the  national  mind  at  a  time  of  great 
national  debasement.  But  it  is  far  more  probable  that  it 
had  already  been  in  existence  for  centuries.  If  it  was  not 
originally  derived  from  the  literature,  we  have  no  other 
means  of  tracing  its  origin  but  from  the  phenomena  pre- 
sented by  the  literature ;  and  there  we  can  see,  from  time 
to  time,  germs  of  the  same  thought  bursting  through  the  soil 
of  surrounding  incident.  From  time  to  time  the  language 
used  is  such  as  to  be  more  naturally  explained  with  refer- 
ence to  this  latent  thought  than  to  any  other  accidents  of 
the  age.  The  recurrence  of  this  language  is  to  be  detected 
in  the  Psalms  and  Prophets  alone  over  a  period  of  at  least 
500  years.  Writer  after  writer  takes  it  up,  and  deals  with 
it  in  his  own  characteristic  manner.  David,  Isaiah,  Micah, 
Jeremiah,  Daniel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  not  to  men- 
tion others,  are  all  distinguished  by  passages  which  appear 
to  have  a  common  allusion  to  this  same  idea,  and  which, 
if  they  have,  are  more  intelligible  than  if  they  have  not. 
In  all  these  remarkable  passages  there  are  characteristic 
features  in  common.  There  is  a  perpetual  falling  back 
upon  the  throne  of  Judah  and  the  house  of  David;  and 
this  even  after  the  throne  was  at  an  end,  and  the  family 
no  longer  reigning.  No  such  feeling  is  ever  associated 
with  any  dynasty  of  Israel.  It  cannot  be  resolved  into 
mere  patriotism,  because  the  same  onward-looking  hope  is 
to  be  found  equally  when  the  throne  is  illustrious  and 
when  it  is  fallen.  It  consistently  disdains  the  present, 
and  is  continually  projected  into  the  distant  future.  No 
present  glory  is  adequate;  nothing  less  than  endless  du- 
ration and  universal  sovereignty  is  alike  demanded  and 
assured.  No  exaggeration  of  individual  differences  is 
capable  of  destroying  the  combined  harmony.  Each 
writer  worked  independently,  but  the  combined  effect  of 
the  whole  is  unity,  or  at  least  the  natural  semblance  of 
consistent  unity.  Such  an  effect,  however,  was  manifestly 


iv.]  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  135 

beyond  the  reach  of  any  series  or  succession  of  writers, 
because  the  earliest  were  ignorant  of,  and  could  not  con- 
trol, the  utterances  of  those  who  wrote  subsequently.  And 
the  utmost  that  the  latest  could  do  was  to  revert  to  an 
earlier  thought,  to  develop  and  expand  it.  No  reason, 
however,  can  be  assigned  for  the  correspondences,  any 
more  than  for  the  differences,  between  the  22d  Psalm  and 
the  53d  of  Isaiah.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that  the  one 
borrowed  from  the  other,  or  that  the  one  suggested  the 
conception  of  the  other.  And  yet,  looked  at  together,  or, 
if  you  will,  in  a  particular  light,  there  is  an  incompre- 
hensible unity.  Are  we  to  be  debarred  from  pronouncing 
this  unity  real  simply  because  it  is  incomprehensible  ? 
The  mere  appearance  of  unity  that  undeniably  exists 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  supposed  similarity  of 
condition  and  circumstances  in  the  different  writers,  added 
to  which  no  conceivable  circumstances  can  adequately 
account  for  the  language  used.  No  adequate  reason  can 
be  assigned  for  the  correspondences,  any  more  than  for 
the  differences,  between  the  21st  Psalm  and  the  33d  of 
Jeremiah.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that  the  one  was 
borrowed  from  or  suggested  the  other  here ;  and  yet,  after 
the  lapse  of  more  than  four  centuries,  there  is  a  certain 
undeniable  similarity.  Was  this  similarity,  such  as  it  is, 
intentional  on  the  part  of  the  later  writer  ?  Was  he  bent 
upon  producing  the  kind  of  effect  and  unity  which,  looked 
at  together  with  other  productions,  or  in  a  particular  aspect, 
his  own  work  has  produced  ?  Was  Ezekiel,  when  drawing 
his  wonderful  potrait  of  the  faithful  Shepherd,  in  his  34th 
and  37th  chapters,4  late  in  the  times  of  the  captivity,  and 
when  the  throne  of  Judah  was  no  more,  reverting  merely 

4  Worthy  of  special  note  in  the  former  chapter  are  verses  23,  24,  and 
in  the  latter,  verses  24,  25.  It  is  my  servant  David  who  is  to  reunite  the 
divided  houses  of  Israel  and  Judah :  and  my  servant  David  shall  be  their 
prince  for  ever. 


136  The  Christ  of  Prophecy. 

to  a  former  thought  ?  or  was  he  not  rather  adding  important 
elements  of  his  own,  the  harmony  and  essential  unity  of 
which  with  the  writings  of  other  prophets  he  could  not 
himself  perceive,  but  which,  after  the  lapse  of  many 
generations,  it  would  be  little  less  than  wilful  blindness 
to  ignore  ?  And  are  we  in  all  these  cases  to  reject  that  one 
particular  aspect  in  which  these  independent  and  diverging 
rays  are  found  to  converge  in  a  marvellous  unity  ?  Surely, 
rather,  forasmuch  as  the  unity  was  one  which  the  writers 
confessedly  could  not  have  agreed  together  to  produce, 
while  we  can  see  for  ourselves  how  striking  and  significant 
it  is,  the  most  natural  and  the  not  unreasonable  inference 
will  be  to  confess  in  the  language  of  the  Psalmist  of  old : 
This  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes. 


LECTURE  V. 

THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


8  (Sljitjienttyum  rear,  e^e   (Sroangetiflett  imb  Styoflel  gefctyrtcfcen  fatten.     (ir« 
ltef  cine  getaume  3eit,  elje  ber  erjle  son  i^nen  f4)rieB  unb  cine  fc^r  betradjtlidje,  e^)e 
tcr  ganje  Jvaitoit  ju  @tante  tarn. 


2)ic  JRettgion  ift  ntc^t  »a^r,  h?eit  tie  ®Mngeliflen  unb  2tyofiel  fie  (c^rten  :  fonfcern 
fu  le^rten  fie,  roeit  fie  tca^r  ifi. 

2lucf>  ba8,  toaS  ®ott  le^rt,  tfl  ntc^t  nja^r,  toell  e3  ®ott  le^ren  w  i  U,  fonbern  ®ott 
Ic^itl  eS,  teett  e8  tta^r  ijl.  —  Leasing. 

Non  disse  Christo  al  suo  primo  convento  : 
Andate  e  predicate  al  mondo  ciance, 
Ma  diede  lor  veraoe  fondamento. 

Dante. 


LECTURE   V. 

The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son 
of  Abraham. — ST.  MATT.  i.  1. 

AEAPID  survey  of  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament 
has  thus  far  brought  us  to  some  important  conclusions 
— First,  to  the  existence,  in  the  second  century  before  our 
era,  not  to  put  it  earlier,  of  the  doctrine  or  conception  of  a 
Messiah ;  secondly,  to  the  inference  that  that  doctrine  or 
conception  was  itself  a  kind  of  commentary  on  the  books, 
inasmuch  as  it  could  only  have  been  derived  from  them. 
It  may  therefore  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  what  they  were 
understood  to  mean  by  the  nation  who  were  their  natural 
guardians,  and  up  to  a  certain  point  as  evidence  of  their 
actual  meaning.  At  all  events,  we  find  an  impression  rife 
in  the  minds  of  the  people,  for  which  these  books  alone 
can  be  held  responsible. 

From  the  position  thus  arrived  at,  moreover,  certain 
corollaries  follow.  If  an  effect  like  this,  which  was  unique 
in  history,  was  produced,  the  cause  producing  it  must 
have  been  unique  also.  We  are  led  therefore  to  the 
actual  existence  of  certain  elements  in  the  Old  Testament 
literature,  which  are  not  to  be  accounted  for  as  we  find 
them.  If  it  had  not  been  felt  with  respect  to  these 
elements  that  the  full  cause  of  their  existence  was  not 
supplied  by  the  local  and  temporary  conditions  under 
which  they  were  produced,  their  special  effect  upon  the 
nation  would  not  have  been  what  it  was.  But,  seeing 


140  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

that  this  effect  was  what  we  know  it  to  have  been,  the 
actual  existence  of  these  elements  is  thus  far  an  evidence 
of  the  special  and  peculiar  character  of  these  books,  a 
distinct  and  unmistakable  mark  of  their  exceptional 
position  in  literature. 

Judged  therefore  by  the  effects  of  its  teaching,  and  by 
the  phenomena  it  presents,  the  Old  Testament  in  itself  is 
a  remarkable  literary  monument,  possessing  characteristics 
that  we  cannot  naturally  account  for.  There  must  have 
been  causes  operating  in  its  production  to  which  we  have 
no  key  or  clue.  We  are  compelled  to  postulate  the  exis- 
tence of  other  forces  at  work  than  those  which  we  recog- 
nise in  the  production  of  other  and  ordinary  literature. 
Even  if  in  such  writings  as  Virgil's  Pollio  and  the  second 
book  of  Plato's  Kepublic  we  can  detect  traces  of  somewhat 
similar  elements,  yet  the  clearness,  the  defmiteness,  and 
the  extent  and  multiplicity  of  those  which  are  found  in 
the  Old  Testament,  are  sufficient  to  distinguish  it  very 
widely  from  the  whole  of  classical  literature.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  a  whole, 
are  distinguished  from  all  other  literature,  no  less  by  their 
contents  than  they  are  by  their  character  and  style.  And 
their  contents  may  be  briefly  summed  up  and  expressed 
in  one  word  by  the  conception  or  doctrine  of  a  coming 
Messiah. 

If,  therefore,  the  existence  and  the  highly  exceptional 
features  of  this  doctrine  or  conception  cannot  be  traced 
back  or  assigned  to  any  natural  origin,  it  is  itself  an 
evidence  so  far  of  an  origin  other  than  natural,  an  indica- 
tion and  presumptive  proof  of  an  external  and  Divine 
communication  having  been  made  to  man.  For  if  other- 
wise, not  only  must  the  natural  origin  of  this  doctrine  be 
clearly  discoverable,  but  the  actual  features  of  its  mani- 
festation must  be  clearly  explicable  on  natural  principles ; 
which  they  are  not. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  141 

Having,  however,  thus  far  reviewed  the  materials  from 
which  alone  the  conception  of  a  coming  Messiah  could 
have  been  derived,  we  have  next  to  consider  the  way  in 
which,  as  a  matter  of  historic  fact,  the  proclamation  that 
He  had  come  was  spread  abroad.  After  the  completion  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  whenever  that  took  place, 
it  does  not  appear  that  any  elements  of  importance  were 
added  to  the  existing  conception  of  a  Messiah.  That  con- 
ception was  undoubtedly  to  a  great  degree  vague  and 
indefinite.  The  predominant  and  favourite  idea  was  that 
unquestionably  of  a  victorious  king.  The  subject  condition 
of  the  people  under  the  Koman  sway  would  naturally  cause 
them  to  cling  to  that  idea  with  fond  tenacity.  The  foreign 
oppression  made  them  long  for  a  deliverer,  made  them 
cherish  their  recollections  of  the  past  of  David's  throne, 
and  indulge  the  ancient  hope  of  one  who  was  to  sit  thereon. 

But  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  were  also  vague 
impressions  of  suffering  and  death  associated  with  the 
notion  of  a  Messiah.  The  distinct  assertion  of  Daniel 
that  the  Prince  Messiah  should  be  cut  off,  would  alone  and 
of  itself  account  for  these.  And  we  can  see  for  ourselves 
the  kind  of  confirmation  they  would  receive  from  other 
parts  of  the  literature.  The  natural  result  of  these  con- 
flicting ideas  would  be  the  notion  which  certainly  prevailed 
to  some  extent  among  the  people,  of  two  Messiahs  :  if  that 
was  rejected,  the  only  solution  would  be  that  the  same 
Messiah  was  to  suffer  and  to  reign. 

Such  were  the  materials  which  were  in  existence  when 
the  son  of  Zacharias  came  preaching  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance in  the  wilderness  of  Judaea,  and  declaring  himself 
the  forerunner  of  One  whose  shoe-latchet  he  was  not 
worthy  to  unloose.  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt 
that  this  was  the  first  movement  in  that  mighty  chain  of 
convulsive  revolutions  which  stirred  the  heart  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar. 


142  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

After  the  lapse  of  upwards  of  four  centuries,  a  remarkable 
person  had  appeared,  who  seemed  to  aim  at  the  restoration 
of  the  prophetic  office,  and  to  emulate  in  himself  the 
traditional  characteristics  of  Elijah.  Unquestionably  this 
was  done  by  him  with  special  reference  to  the  writings  of 
Malachi.  He  is  said  to  have  described  himself  as  the  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  quoting  words  of  Isaiah  which  were  obviously  in 
the  mind  of  Malachi  when  he  wrote  about  the  messenger  of 
the  Lord  of  hosts  who  should  prepare  His  way  before  Him, 
and  of  sending  Elijah  the  prophet  before  the  coming  of  the 
great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord. 

The  way,  then,  in  w^hich  John  fulfilled  his  mission  is 
itself  a  proof  of  the  kind  of  anticipation  which  had  either 
been  created  by  the  prophets  or  was  capable  of  being 
created  by  an  appeal  to  them.  They  were  regarded  as  the 
bearers  of  a  message  which  waited  for  its  fulfilment.  It 
was  not  supposed  that  the  actual  circumstances  of  their 
time  had  exhausted  all  the  meaning  of  their  language.  It 
was  a  fact  that  expectations  had  been  aroused  by  them,  and 
these  expectations  were  a  reality  which  could  be  turned  to 
account  as  they  were  by  John  the  Baptist.  While,  however, 
this  was  the  case,  John  does  not  seem  to  have  encouraged 
the  popular  notion  that  a  powerful  ruler  was  about  to  appear. 
The  key-note  of  his  preaching  was  repentance;  the  most 
conspicuous  feature  of  his  character  was  austerity.  The 
movement  he  originated  was  purely  moral,  and  in  no  sense 
political.  The  kingdom  to  which  he  referred  was  not  that  of 
Herod  or  Tiberius,  but  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  particular 
phrase,  also,  which  was  characteristic  of  his  teaching,  was 
without  doubt  not  original  with  him,  but  a  reminiscence  of 
the  old  prophetic  teaching,  and  showed  more  especially  a 
reversion  to  the  language  of  Daniel,  without  which  it  is 
hardly  to  be  understood.  That  prophet  had  said  that  the 
God  of  Heaven  should  set  up  a  kingdom.,  which  should 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  143 

never  be  destroyed  but  stand  for  ever;1  and  of  the  Son  of 
man,  whom  he  saw  in  the  night  visions,  he  had  said  that 
there  was  given  Him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom, 
that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  Him  ; 
that  His  dominion  was  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  should 
not  pass  away,  and  His  kingdom  that  which  should  not  be 
destroyed.2 

There  can  be  no  question  that  this  figure  and  language 
was  adopted  by  John,  and  that  he  believed  his  own  time  to 
be  cast  on  the  eve  of  the  establishment  of  this  kingdom ; 
but  he  does  not  appear  to  have  conceived  of  it  as  earthly 
or  as  the  rival  of  other  kingdoms  already  in  existence. 
Certainly  he  took  no  steps  to  prepare  for  any  such  kingdom, 
though  he  believed  he  was  preparing  the  way  before  the 
Lord  by  the  preaching  of  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins. 

While,  however,  he  bore  his  testimony  to  Jesus,  he  seems, 
at  all  events  latterly,  to  have  had  misgivings  about  Him ; 
and  he  certainly  died  without  seeing  the  advent  of  that 
kingdom  which  he  had  proclaimed  as  near. 

His  career,  however,  had  produced  certain  results.  It 
must  have  had  the  effect  of  resuscitating  the  popular  faith 
in  the  promises  of  the  ancient  prophets.  For  a  long  time 
that  faith  had  languished ;  it  now  revived  with  unusual 
vigour,  so  much  so  that  all  men  mused  in  their  hearts  of 
John  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not.s  He  declared, 
however,  that  he  was  not  the  Christ,  but  that  he  was  sent 
before  Him.  The  preaching  of  John,  then,  had  had  the 
effect  of  raising  men's  minds  to  the  very  verge  of  im- 
mediate expectation.  It  had  also  the  further  effect  of 
warning  men  that  the  kingdom  which  they  expected  could 
only  be  prepared  for  by  a  moral  reformation.  As  it  had 
been  said  of  the  coming  Elijah  that  he  should  turn  the 
heart  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the 

1  Dan.  ii.  44.  2  vii.  14.  3  St.  Luke  iii.  15. 


144  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

children  to  their  fathers,  so  the  mission  of  John  was 
directed  to  the  moral  regeneration  of  society.  This,  how- 
ever, he  distinctly  declared  himself  unable  to  complete; 
it  was  to  be  the  work  of  the  "  one  greater  Man  "  who  was 
to  come. 

I  think,  then,  we  may  fairly  say  that  the  character  of 
John  the  Baptist  as  drawn  by  the  Evangelists  is  not  one 
that  could  have  been  constructed  out  of  the  materials 
already  existing  in  Isaiah  and  Malachi.  No  pondering 
over  the  obscure  language  of  these  prophets  could  have 
resulted  in  such  a  picture  as  the  Gospel -writers  have 
delineated.  And  if,  availing  themselves  of  the  foundation 
of  fact  that  was  ready  to  hand,  they  coloured  it  to  suit 
their  own  purposes,  they  did  not  bring  it  more  into  har- 
mony with  the  original  as  sketched  by  the  prophets.  In 
fact,  their  own  portrait  of  the  Baptist  was  an  original  of 
itself.  As  a  fabrication  it  was  no  counterpart  to  the 
shadowy  outline  of  the  prophets.  It  was  therefore  drawn 
from  the  life,  or  it  was  nothing. 

But  if  we  take  the  character  of  John  as  presented  in 
the  Gospels  to  be  a  true  representation  of  an  historical 
personage,  it  is  not  at  all  more  easy  to  understand  how 
it  could  have  been  designedly  produced  upon  the  model 
already  existing.  To  suppose  that  John  deliberately  set 
himself  down  to  mark  out  for  himself  a  career  that  should 
have  the  effect  of  corresponding  with  what  had  been  writ- 
ten of  the  messenger  of  the  Lord,  -is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable.  Even  if  so,  his  character  had  all  the  merit  of 
profound  originality.  And,  therefore,  as  it  could  not  have 
been  naturally  created  by  an  effort  of  the  personal  will  out 
of  the  slender  materials  to  be  gathered  from  the  prophets, 
the  character  of  John  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  inde- 
pendent and  spontaneous  creation  of  history;  and  any 
correspondence  it  may  have  with  the  prophetical  portrait 
of  the  messenger  of  the  Lord  must  be  judged  simply  on 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  145 

its  own  merits,  and  cannot  be  ascribed,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
the  deliberate  intention  of  John,  or,  on  the  other,  to  the 
constructive  literary  skill  of  the  Evangelists. 

And  if  this  is  true  of  the  very  first  character  we  meet 
with  in  the  Gospel  history,  it  becomes  so  in  a  far  higher 
degree  of  the  great  character  of  all.  The  only  reasonable 
theory  of  that  history,  if  it  is  not  accepted  as  a  trustworthy 
record  of  fact,  is  that  the  writers  were  supplied  with  a 
remarkable  character  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and  that  they  designedly  moulded  their  representation  of 
His  character  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  appear  to  be  the 
historical  counterpart  of  the  prophetic  Messiah. 

To  estimate  the  probability  of  this  being  the  case,  we 
must  carefully  remember  the  materials  which  they  had 
ready  to  hand.  These  were  the  dreams  of  th&  prophets,  on 
which  rested  the  ancient  but  apparently  the  long-forgotten 
hope  of  an  heir  to  the  house  of  David.  As  that  family 
was  now  in  a  very  prostrate  condition,  it  was  apparently 
quite  hopeless  that  it  should  again  emerge  to  power.  If 
David's  family  was  ever  to  rule  again,  there  was  no  visible 
or  immediate  prospect  of  its  ruling. 

But  on  this  point,  if  on  any,  the  ancient  prophets  were 
with  one  voice  unanimous.  That  rule,  however,  was  uni- 
formly depicted  in  the  prophetic  language  with  the  adjuncts 
of  worldly  glory  and  material  splendour.  Kings  were  to  be 
smitten  to  the  earth  beneath  the  iron  rod  of  the  avenging4 
King.  Gold  and  silver  were  to  be  brought  in  abundance 
to  adorn  the  footstool  of  his  throne.5  All  the  regal  gar- 
ments were  to  smell  of  myrrh,  aloes,  and  cassia,  out  of  the 
ivory  palaces.6  A  very  unpromising  subject  that  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  out  of  which  to  construct  a  portrait  which  was 
to  be  accepted  as  the  counterpart  of  this.  But  these  were 
the  materials  with  which  the  Gospel-writers  had  to  work. 
Like  the  Egyptian  bondsmen  of  old,  they  were  reduced  to 

*  Ps.  ii.  9.  3  Is.  Ix.  17,  13.  6  Ps.  xlv.  8. 

L 


146  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

the  necessity  of  making  bricks  without  straw.  But  how 
this  was  to  be  done  might  have  taxed  a  finer  ingenuity 
than  theirs. 

And  it  must  be  remembered  that  all  the  knowledge  we 
possess  of  the  origin  of  that  movement  which  is  associated 
with  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  comprised  in  the  Gospels. 
If  they  are  not  actually  the  earliest  Christian  writings, 
they  at  least  profess  to  deal  with  a  time  anterior  to  any 
other  compositions,  epistolary  or  narrative.  Whether  or 
not,  therefore,  they  are  to  be  taken  exactly  as  we  find  them, 
they  are  absolutely  the  only  sources  from  which  we  can 
derive  our  information.  And  while  in  endeavouring  to 
form  an  entirely  dispassionate  judgment,  we  may  justly  be 
required  to  reject  everything  of  a  supernatural  or  miracu- 
lous character,  there  are  certain  natural  features  inseparable 
from  the  narrative  which  we  are  bound  to  accept.  And 
among  these  are  the  claims  advanced  by  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messiah,  and  the  way  in  which  He  advanced  them,  or  is 
said  to  have  advanced  them. 

It  is  obvious  therefore  that  the  only  materials  that  Jesus 
himself  or  the  Evangelists  had  to  work  with  in  advancing 
these  claims  were  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  the  national 
expectations  derived  from  them,  and  the  movement  origin- 
ated by  John  the  Baptist.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  preaching  of  Jesus  commenced  before  that  of  John 
had  come  to  an  end,  or  at  all  events  before  the  death  of 
John.7  Early  Christian  tradition,  which  we  need  not 
hesitate  to  accept,  places  but  a  difference  of  six  months 
between  their  respective  ages.  Each  of  the  Gospels 
represents  the  ministry  of  Jesus  as  immediately  connected 
with  that  of  John.  The  fourth  Gospel  seems  to  hint  at  a 
kind  of  rivalry  as  from  the  first  subsisting  between  the 
disciples  of  John  and  of  Jesus — a  rivalry,  however,  which 

^  St.  John  iii.  24.  St.  Matt.  xiv.  10.  St.  Mark  vi.  27.  St.  Luke  iii.  20. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  147 

elicited  some  of  the  noblest  features  of  John's  character, 
and  which  was  certainly  not  encouraged  by  Jesus.8 

One  of  the  first  questions,  then,  which  suggest  themselves 
in  considering  this  portion  of  the  narrative  is  how  far  what 
we  may  call  the  idea  of  Jesus  was  derived  from  that  of 
John.  All  the  Evangelists  agree  in  representing  Jesus  to 
have  been  baptised  by  John,9  and  to  have  had  a  special 
designation  of  his  career  given  him  at  that  moment.  And 
they  declare  unanimously  that  John  was  the  first  to 
acknowledge  this.  It  was  indeed  essential  to  the  part 
which  John  may  be  supposed  to  have  assumed  that  he 
should  point  out  his  great  Successor.  But  after  he  had 
done  this  it  was  clearly  open  to  his  successor  how  He 
should  determine  His  own  career.  It  is  not  a  little 
remarkable  that  He  should  have  adopted  from  the  first  the 
very  language  of  John,  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand.  But  having  begun  from  the  same  point,  He 
had  before  Him  a  totally  independent  and  a  far  more 
difficult  course  to  fulfil  than  that  of  John. 

But  if  the  conception  of  John  was  original,  it  was  also 
unaccountable  that  he  should  have  chosen  the  particular 
character  he  did.  With  the  two  characters  of  Christ  and 
His  forerunner  both  before  him,  why  should  he  have  chosen 
the  forerunner's  instead  of  Christ's  ?  And  yet  there  is  no 
evidence  that  these  two  characters  were  ever  reversed,  or 
that  the  relative  positions  of  John  and  Jesus  were  ever 
different.  And  from  what  we  know  of  John  it  is  certain 
that  his  character  would  never  have  supplied  the  materials 
for  a  counterpart  of  the  prophetic  Messiah,  while,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  all  the  Gospels,  he  expressly  disclaimed 
that  office. 

It  must  be  confessed,  then,  that  Jesus  when  He  entered 
on  His  career  had  before  Him  a  task  of  no  ordinary  magni- 

8  St.  John  iii.  25 ;  iv.  3. 

9  St.  John  implies  this,  i.  31,  33. 


148  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

tude  and  difficulty,  if  from  the  first  He  intended  to  propose 
Himself  as  the  Messiah.  What  is  the  evidence  that  he 
had  this  intention  ?  The  ministry  and  career  of  John  the 
Baptist. 

We  know  very  little  of  John  if  he  did  not  profess  to  be 
the  forerunner  of  Christ,  and  there  is  sufficient  evidence 
that  Jesus  regarded  John  and  taught  others  to  regard  him 
in  that  capacity.  With  this  evidence  before  us  we  cannot 
say  that  the  distinctive  character  of  John  was  one  assigned 
to  him  only  by  the  Evangelists.  We  must  assume  that 
he  claimed  to  fulfil  this  office,  and  that  from  a  very  early 
period  of  his  ministry  Jesus  acknowledged  him  in  it.  But 
if  so,  the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus  was  a  conception 
present  to  His  mind  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry. 
It  did  not  first  dawn  upon  Him  in  consequence  of  unex- 
pected success.  It  was  not  an  afterthought,  but  He  aimed 
at  fulfilling  it  from  the  first. 

For  example,  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount  He  says — 
Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets : 
I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil  ;l  and  at  the  same 
time  announces  Himself  as  a  greater  lawgiver  than  Moses. 
This  from  a  Galilsean  peasant  who  had  been  brought  up 
in  obscurity  is  sufficiently  significant  of  His  claims,  and 
indicative  of  the  office  He  assumed.  In  the  same  discourse 
He  not  only  gives  His  disciples  new  principles  of  conduct, 
but  provides  for  them  a  new  model  of  prayer,  and  distinctly 
announces  Himself  as  the  future  Judge  of  the  world  as 
well  as  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  whose  doctrine  is  a  sure 
foundation.  Is  it  possible  that  the  Man  who  in  one  of 
His  earliest  discourses  made  use  of  language  such  as  this 
should  have  felt  any  hesitation  in  His  own  mind  as  to  the 
career  on  which  He  was  entering  ? 

It  is  to  be  observed,  also,  that  though  His  preaching 

i  St.  Matt.  v.  17;  xi.  10,  14;  xvii.  11,  13;  xxi.  23-26.     St.  Mark  ix. 
12,  13 ;  xi.  30-32.    St.  Luke  vii.  27;  xx.  4-6.     St.  John  v.  32-35. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  149 

commenced  with  the  same  key-note  as  John's,  it  at  once 
passes  into  a  higher  strain  and  assumes  on  His  lips  a 
deeper  significance.  John  had  not  ventured  to  define 
what  he  meant  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  no  sooner 
does  Jesus  open  His  mouth  than  He  says,  Blessed  are  the 
poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven?1  What 
a  turning  of  things  upside  down  was  there  not  here 
for  those  who  looked  for  a  temporal  king,  and  what  an 
original  conception  for  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  king  for 
whom  they  looked,  or  of  whom  the  prophets  had  spoken, 
but  who  had  no  other  materials  to  work  with  than  those 
which  were  common  to  the  multitudes  and  to  Him !  Nor 
is  this  all,  for  He  claims  to  know  so  well  the  nature  of 
that  of  which  He  speaks,  that  He  declares  without  hesita- 
tion who  shall  respectively  be  called  least  and  first  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  At  the  same  time  He  promulgates  a 
new  name  for  God,  which  fell  upon  men's  ears  like  music 
from  another  world,  which  had  never  before  had  the  same 
significance,  and  is  even  now  but  feebly  apprehended  and 
imperfectly  understood  after  being  repeated  for  more  than 
eighteen  centuries — that,  namely,  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven;*  while,  with  an  eye  that  sees  into  the  very 
depth  of  truth,  wisdom,  and  beauty,  and  a  heart  that  can 
pass  an  original  interpretation  upon  the  commonest  works 
of  nature,  He  says  of  Him,  that  He  maketh  His  sun  to  rise 
on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and 
on  the  unjust.4"  He  knows  who  they  are  whom  this  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  will  reward,  and  who  they  are  whom 
He  will  not  forgive.  He  exhorts  His  disciples  t0  seek  first 
this  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  though  it  were  something 
already  within  their  reach,  and  only  required  to  be  sought 
for  earnestly ;  and  to  seek  it  even  before  food  and  clothing, 
because  there  was  a  higher  life  which  God  alone  could 
supply,  and  because  He  who  was  mindful  of  the  greater 

3  St.  Matt.  v.  3.  3  v.  16.  *  v.  45. 


1 50  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

would  assuredly  not  forget  the  less.  He  knows  who  they 
are  that  shall  enter  into  this  kingdom,  and  leaves  it  to  be 
inferred  that  the  determination  of  them  rests  with  Him. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  then,  that  already  the  remarkable 
phrase,  the  'kingdom  of  heaven,  has  assumed  a  very  different 
meaning  in  the  language  of  Jesus  from  that  which  it  had 
in  the  teaching  of  John ;  and  if  one  conception  was  original, 
so  was  the  other  too.  Jesus  cannot  have  derived  from  John 
the  first  thought  of  His  career,  the  first  suggestion  of  the 
character  He  was  to  personate,  because  the  method  He  at 
once  adopts  is  totally  different.  No  language  such  as  this 
had  ever  been  used  by  John.  No  pretensions  similar  to 
these  had  ever  been  advanced  by  John.  Jesus  from  the 
first  enters  another  orbit,  and  the  circle  he  describes  differs 
from  that  of  John  as  the  infinite  differs  from  the  finite. 

And  here  there  are  but  two  courses  open  to  us.  Either 
these  were  respectively  the  characters  of  John  and  Jesus, 
or  else  they  were  the  invention  of  those  who  wrote  the 
Gospels.  If  the  characters  of  John  and  Jesus  respectively 
were  such  as  they  are  described  to  have  been,  and  if  the 
one  man  claimed  to  be  the  forerunner,  and  the  other  the 
Messiah,  then  we  know  exactly  the  kind  of  foundation 
upon  which  each  had  to  build.  And  certainly,  prior  to 
the  fact,  no  one  could  have  ventured  to  predict  for  either 
the  slightest  prospect  of  success.  The  conception  of  the 
Messianic  office  as  it  was  fulfilled  by  Jesus  was  so  novel, 
and  so  unlike  anything  that  had  been  or  was  likely  to  be 
derived  from  the  prophets,  and  welcome  to  the  popular 
mind,  that  we  can  only  wonder  at  its  daring  originality. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  these  two  characters  were  the 
invention  of  the  Evangelists,  and  were  instances  of  the 
way  in  which  they  misrepresented  facts,  then,  as  we  have 
no  means  of  determining  what  the  facts  were  which  they 
misrepresented,  we  can  only  estimate  their  misrepresenta- 
tion as  we  find  it.  And  riot  only  are  the  two  portraits  of 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  1 5 1 

John  and  Jesus,  as  given  by  the  Evangelists,  such  as  we 
cannot  understand  to  have  originated  with  men  of  the 
stamp  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  but  they  are  also  the  exact 
opposite  of  what  we  should  have  expected  them  to  construct 
out  of  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and  the  popular  antici- 
pations based  thereon. 

Looking  at  the  Gospels  merely  as  fictitious  narratives 
purporting  to  record  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophets,  we 
have  to  account,  first  of  all,  for  the  extreme  and  obvious 
dissimilarity  between  the  prophetic  ideal  and  the  professed 
historic  fulfilment  of  it.  And  this  is  equally  true  whether 
the  claim  to  be  the  Messiah  was  advanced  by  Jesus  Himself, 
or  by  His  followers  on  His  behalf. 

But,  in  order  to  see  this  more  clearly,  let  us  examine  the 
method  pursued  by  Jesus  in  advancing  this  claim.  It  will 
not  be  doubted  that  miracles  were  an  essential  part  of  it. 
That  Jesus  professed  to  work  miracles  there  can  be  no 
question.  This  was  a  fundamental  difference  between  the 
course  adopted  by  John  and  that  followed  by  Jesus.  It 
was  a  conspicuous  mark  of  the  originality  of  the  latter 
compared  with  the  former.  It  was  a  distinct  return  to  the 
method  of  the  old  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha.  But  though 
we  can  see  that  there  were  passages  in  Isaiah5  which  might 
have  prepared  men's  minds  for  such  a  putting  forth  of  the 
Divine  power,  it  is  not  in  the  least  degree  probable  that 
they  would  have  suggested  the  anticipation  of  it.  And 
yet,  from  the  very  first,  the  mind  of  Jesus  seized  upon  this 
feature  as  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  part  He  had 
assumed.  And  he  never  abandoned  it  to  the  last.  It  is 
not  a  question  now  of  the  reality  of  the  miracles,  but  of 
the  fact  whether  or  not  they  formed  a  part  of  His  con- 
ception of  the  Messianic  office.  And  of  this  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  But  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  such  a  conception 
is  to  be  considered  more  probable  if  originating  with  Him 

5  Isa.  xxix.  18 ;  xxxv.  4,  5,  6  ;  xlii.  7. 


152  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

or  with  the  writers  of  the  Gospel  narrative.  Supposing 
the  Evangelists  to  have  had  before  them  the  task  of  con- 
structing the  figure  of  a  Messiah  out  of  the  materials 
already  existing  in  the  Scriptures,  what  reason  is  there  to 
suppose  that  they  would  have  performed  it  in  this  way, 
and  selected  these  particular  features,  by  no  means  the 
most  prominent? 

The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the  method  of  teaching  by 
parable  so  frequently  adopted  by  Jesus.  This  was  a  method 
of  which  there  were  but  few  examples  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  it  was,  comparatively  speaking,  altogether  new. 
And,  taking  the  reason  assigned  for  the  choice  of  it  by 
St.  Matthew,6  we  certainly  cannot  see  either  that  it  was 
essential  to  the  prophetic  conception  of  the  Messianic 
character,  or  that  it  was  a  feature  likely  to  commend  itself 
to  men  like  the  Evangelists,  or  those  for  whom  they  wrote. 
And  yet  it  was  a  method  actually  followed  by  Jesus,  or 
deliberately  assigned  to  Him  by  those  who  wished  to 
represent  Him  as  the  promised  Messiah. 

Not  less  remarkable  is  the  substance  of  the  teaching 
which  was  inculcated  by  Jesus.  Bearing  in  mind  that  the 
character  He  was  to  personate  had  to  be  constructed  out  of 
materials  already  existing,  or  at  all  events  to  be  conformed 
naturally  to  them,  it  appears  that  the  special  prominence 
given  by  Jesus  to  faith  was  not  likely  to  suggest  itself  to 
the  ordinary  student  of  the  Scripture  record.  We  pro- 
bably find  it  difficult  at  times  to  justify  to  ourselves  the 
threefold7  quotation  of  the  words  of  Habakkuk  in  the 
New  Testament,  TJie  just  shall  live  ~by  faith,  with  the 
superstructure  that  is  reared  upon  it.  Even  the  repeated 
reference  to  this  very  passage  may  serve  to  show  that  the 
doctrine  based  upon  it  was  not  the  most  conspicuous  on 
the  surface  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  it  cannot  fail  to 
strike  the  most  casual  observer  of  our  Lord's  teaching  that 
6  St.  Matt.  xiii.  35.  ?  Rom<  £.  17 .  Qai.  itf.  \\  .  Heb.  x.  38. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  153 

the  inculcation  of  personal  faith  occupies  perhaps  the  very 
foremost  place  in  it.  What  words  more  common  on  His 
lips  than  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee,  and  the  like  ?  while 
with  many  of  His  discourses  it  is  this  root-principle  of 
faith  that  they  seem  intended  to  develop  more  than  any 
other,  or  at  least  as  frequently  as  any  other.  After  we 
have  accepted  His  teaching,  or  at  any  rate  been  instructed 
by  it,  we  find  it  easy  to  discover  the  very  same  principle 
underlying  a  very  large  portion  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
it  is  He  who  has  guided  us  to  it ;  and  from  this  fact  we 
have  to  estimate  the  nature  of  the  discovery  in  the  first 
instance,  and  to  judge  of  the  originality  of  Him  who  made 
it.  Surely  to  gather  up  into  one  root-principle  the  sub- 
stantial teaching  of  a  large  portion  both  of  Psalm  and 
Prophecy  was  an  achievement  of  originality  and  genius 
second  only,  if  second,  to  that  which  could  declare  to 
professed  doctors  of  the  law,  that  to  love  the  Lord  with 
all  the  heart  and  to  love  one's  neighbour  as  oneself  were 
the  two  commandments  on  which  depended  all  the  law 
and  the  prophets. 

But  if  such  teaching  as  this  contained  in  itself  the 
marks  of  striking  originality,  how  much  more  daring  and 
hazardous  was  the  undisguised  attempt  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  to  identify  Himself  with  the  ultimate  object  of  this 
faith !  And  yet  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  this,  and  nothing 
short  of  this,  was  in  many  cases  the  direct  and  expressed 
intention  of  Jesus.  For  what  other  reason  was  the  woman 
with  an  issue  of  blood  healed,  but  that  her  faith  in  Him 
had  made  her  whole  ?8  For  what  other  reason  was  sight 
given  to  the  two  blind  men  in  the  same  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel,  but  that  they  believed  He  was  able  to 
give  it  ?  And  let  it  be  most  carefully  observed,  that  we 
neither  assume  these  miracles  to  have  been  actually  wrought 
by  Jesus,  nor  that  Jesus  had  the  power  to  work  them,  but 

*  St.  Matt.  ix.  22.    St.  Mark  v.  34.    St.  Luke  viii.  48. 


154  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

only  that  He  really  did  profess  to  work  them ;  or,  what 
the  severest  criticism  cannot  deny  us,  that  the  Evangelist 
represented  the  man  whom  he  would  have  us  believe  to 
have  been  the  Messiah  as  having  actually  wrought  them, 
and  as  having  wrought  them  under  these  conditions.  More 
than  this  we  do  not  ask,  and  thus  much  all  are  bound  to 
concede,  that  these  were  fair  samples  of  the  way  in  which 
Jesus  advanced  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  or  at  least  of 
the  way  in  which  that  claim  was  advanced  for  Him  by  the 
Evangelists.  And  we  say  that  in  either  case  the  position 
to  be  maintained  was  one  of  which  we  are  able  to  form  a 
sufficiently  correct  idea.  The  only  foundation  which  either 
the  one  or  the  other  had  to  build  upon  was  what  had  been 
written  of  old,  and  what  was  then  cherished  by  the  people 
in  consequence  of  it.  And  it  certainly  does  not  appear 
that  either  was,  or  that  both  together  were,  a  basis  ade- 
quate to  sustain  the  superstructure  to  be  reared  upon  it. 
And  yet  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  in  this  manner,  and 
in  this  manner  only,  that  the  earliest  attempts  to  delineate 
the  personal  character  and  conduct  of  Jesus  were  made. 

Again,  it  is  perhaps  legitimate  to  detect  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  twelve  apostles  an  indication  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
of  a  claim  to  be  the  founder  of  a  new  society  or  kingdom, 
which  is  implied  in  the  Messiahship.  In  it  there  was  a 
manifest  imitation  of  the  twelve  tribes,  of  which  the  nation 
was  originally  composed,  and  their  founders.  If  the  nation 
was  to  be  reconstructed,  it  was  certainly  not  unnatural  that 
it  should  be  so  upon  this  scheme.  But  it  nowhere  appeared 
as  a  characteristic  of  the  coming  Messiah  that  He  should 
act  thus.  Here,  therefore,  there  was  an  original  step  taken 
which  was  not  calculated  to  advance  the  claims  put  forth 
by  Jesus,  and  which  could  only  be  interpreted  as  a  parody 
upon  the  patriarchal  history,  if  it  was  not  accepted  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  and  intention  of  its  Author.  But  if  the 
act  of  Jesus  had  an  anterior  prejudice  against  it,  that  act 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  155 

becomes  yet  more  unaccountable,  not  to  say  absurd,  if  re- 
garded as  the  invention  of  the  Gospel-writers.  It  is  hard 
to  see  that  their  case  for  Jesus  being  the  Messiah  would 
be  in  any  degree  advanced  by  His  being  made  to  choose 
twelve  men,  for  the  most  part  fishermen,  and  sending  them 
forth  to  preach.  What  prophecy  was  fulfilled  by  His  so 
doing?  And  to  suppose  that  the  object  was  to  give  the 
imagined  king  the  semblance  of  a  court,  and  on  that  ground 
to  commend  Him  as  the  glorious  monarch  spoken  of  by  the 
prophets  and  cherished  in  the  day-dreams  of  the  people,  is 
simply  preposterous. 

The  charge,  also,  that  was  given  to  the  twelve  suggests 
at  least  one  point  in  which  the  conception  of  Jesus  and  of 
the  Evangelists  appears  to  have  been  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  prophets.  The  apostles  are  expressly  forbidden  to 
go  to  the  Gentiles  or  to  the  Samaritans,  and  on  another 
occasion  we  know  that  our  Lord  refused  to  hear  the  peti- 
tion of  an  alien  on  the  ground  that  He  was  not  sent  but 
unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel;  whereas  it 
must  have  been  clear  to  the  men  of  that  day  that  the 
promise  of  unlimited  dominion  had  been  given  to  the 
future  king,  and  at  least  one  passage,  which  must  have 
been  regarded  both  by  Jesus  and  His  disciples  as  Messi- 
anic, had  said,  He  shall  speak  peace  unto  the  heathen :  and  his 
dominion  shall  be  from  sea  even  to  sea,  and  from  the  river 
even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.9  Surely,  then,  it  was  a  gratui- 
tous violation  of  apparent  Messianic  characteristics,  either 
for  Jesus  to  confine  His  attention  so  rigorously  to  the 
people  of  His  own  nation,  or  for  His  biographers  to  repre- 
sent Him  as  doing  so.  And  yet  in  this  same  charge  to  the 
twelve  we  have  the  spontaneous  conviction  breaking  out 
that  a  much  wider  field  than  Palestine  lay  before  them : 
And  ye  shall  be  brought  before  governers  and  kings  for  my 
sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the  Gentiles;*  to- 

»  Zech.  ix.  10.  *  St.  Matt.  x.  18. 


156  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

gether  with  a  clear  perception  of  the  consequences  of  their 
teaching  and  of  His  own  mission :  Think  not  that  I  am 
come  to  send  peace  on  earth :  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  hut  a 
sword?1  For  a  man's  foes  shall  he  they  of  his  own  household? 
We  may  accept  this  as  an  indication  that  any  such  apparent 
divergence  from  the  path  prescribed  to  the  Messiah  was 
intentional  on  the  part  of  Jesus.  It  was  a  token  of  con- 
scious reserve  of  power.  He  intended  His  dominion  to 
be  universal,  but  not  as  it  might  be  presumed  it  would 
be.  He  intended  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles,  but  not  till  He 
had  first  been  rejected  as  king  of  the  Jews. 

And  all  this  must  be  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the  Messianic 
idea  as  it  was  sought  to  be  realised  by  Jesus,  or  else  as  a 
part  of  that  idea  which  His  disciples  attributed  to  Him. 
And  in  either  case  it  does  not  fit  in  well  with  those 
materials  which  we  know  were  then  in  existence,  out  of 
which,  and  of  which  alone,  it  was  possible  for  it  to  have 
been  originated. 

There  are,  moreover,  other  points  which  appear  to  have 
been  present  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  as  an  integral  part  of 
His  plan,  if  not  from  the  very  first,  at  least  from  a  very 
early  period.  The  first  of  these  was  His  own  death.  No 
wise  man  can  ever  be  unmindful  of  death — and  bear  with 
me,  brethren,  if  I  pause  for  a  moment  to  ask,  Have  not  we 
here,  as  well  as  the  world  of  science  at  large,  been  reminded 
but  now  of  the  ever  solemn,  but,  to  the  believing  Christian, 
the  never  awful  nearness  of  death,  even  in  the  midst  of 
ease,  honour,  and  usefulness,  by  the  lamentable  accident 
of  Thursday  last,  which  has  deprived  this  university  of 
one  of  her  brightest  ornaments,4  and  united  her  in  what 
was  so  recently  to  both  an  equal  sorrow  with  the  sister 
university5  of  this  land  and  with  the  younger6  but  kindred 

2  St.  Matt.  x.  34.        3  x.  36.       4  John  Phillips  died  April  24,  1874. 

5  Adam  Sedgwick  died  Jan.  27, 1873. 

6  Louis  J.  R.  Agassiz  died  Dec.  14,  1873. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  157 

institution  of  a  distant  hemisphere  ?  Verily  we  have 
cause  to  pray,  So  teach  us  to  number  our  days  that  we  may 
apply  our  hearts  unto  wisdom,  for  the  wise  man  is  ever 
mindful  of  death — and  therefore  we  need  not  wonder  if 
we  find  allusions  to  His  own  death  in  the  recorded  words 
of  Jesus.  But  the  allusions  we  do  find  are  of  a  very 
different  character  from  these.  Even  the  beatitudes  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  contained  an  ominous  foreboding 
of  persecution  for  His  sake;7  and  in  the  charge  to  the 
twelve  already  mentioned  we  find  the  yet  more  remarkable 
words,  He  that  taketh  not  his  cross  and  followeth  after  me 
is  not  worthy  of  me?  Indeed,  the  greater  portion  of  that 
address  is  a  solemn  and  unambiguous  warning  not  to 
be  dismayed  at  persecution.  If  it  was  merely  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  by  the  writer,  even  then  it  must  be 
reckoned  as  part  of  the  writer's  conception  of  the  Messiah, 
and  it  is  an  indication  of  the  consistent  development  of 
his  plan  from  the  first.  He  did  not  suddenly  pause  in  his 
career  and  change  his  course,  but  held  on  steadily,  knowing 
when  he  started  what  the  goal  was  to  be  and  the  way  to 
reach  it.  When  the  disciples  of  the  imprisoned  John 
came  to  Jesus  to  ask  whether  He  was  the  Messiah,  the 
answer  given  was  an  appeal  to  certain  language  of  Isaiah, 
which  spoke  of  the  blind  seeing,  the  deaf  hearing,  and  the 
like,  coupled  with  the  admonitory  benediction :  Blessed  is 
he,  whosoever  shall  not  le  offended  in  me.9  This  not  only 
showed  the  idea  which  Jesus  had  formed  of  the  Messiah's 
office,  but  the  kind  of  fate  He  anticipated  for  Himself. 
Shortly  after  we  read  of  the  Pharisees  holding  a  council 
how  they  might  destroy  Him,1  and  of  Jesus  withdrawing 
Himself  and  charging  the  multitudes  not  to  make  Him 
known.  This  appears  to  the  writer  to  be  a  fulfilment  of 
other  language  of  the  prophet,  but  it  is  such  as  could 

7  St.  Matt.  v.  10,  11.  e  x.  38. 

9  St.  Matt.  xi.  6.  *  xii.  14. 


158  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

hardly  have  suggested  itself  spontaneously  to  him  if  he 
were  inventing  his  portrait  of  the  Christ,  and  it  would 
have  been  unlikely  to  commend  itself  to  those  who 
expected  the  advent  of  a  powerful  king. 

It  appears,  however,  according  to  him,  that  shortly  after- 
wards the  question  was  actually  raised,  Is  not  this  the  son 
of  David  ?2  And  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  ques- 
tion was  debated  in  our  Lord's  lifetime.  We  may  fairly 
ask,  therefore,  If  it  was,  why  was  it  ?  For,  considering  the 
mean  origin  of  Jesus,  and  the  unpromising  circumstances 
of  His  position,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  adequate 
cause  for  any  such  question  to  be  raised,  unless  the 
surroundings  of  His  character  were  not  altogether  unlike 
those  assigned  to  Him  by  the  Evangelists.  But  if  men 
really  did  ask  this  question,  it  can  only  have  been  in 
consequence  of  the  teaching  of  John,  and  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  about  Himself,  and  the  works  wrought  by  Jesus: 
it  cannot  have  been  because  of  the  striking  external 
resemblance  between  the  person  of  Jesus  and  the  descrip- 
tions given  by  the  prophets  of  the  Messiah.  Unless, 
therefore,  we  can  actually  disprove  the  fact  of  this  question 
having  been  asked,  it  may  surely  be  taken  as  an  incidental 
corroboration  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 
Jesus  did  profess  to  be  the  Christ :  He  did  profess  to  work 
miracles :  His  claims  to  be  the  Christ  were  advanced,  and 
were  to  a  certain  extent  admitted,  notwithstanding  the 
many  outward  difficulties  in  the  way  of  any  such  admission. 
Surely  no  treatment  of  the  Gospel  history  can  demur  to 
these  inferences  being  drawn  from  its  broad  and  general 
tenor. 

There  appears,  however,  to  have  been  a  point  in  the 

career  of  Jesus  when  His  allusions  to  His  own  death 

became  more  explicit  and  distinct,  and  this  was  after  what 

is  called  His  transfiguration.    According  to  the  first  Gospel, 

a  St.  Matt.  xii.  14. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  159 

He  had  twice3  before  that  event  spoken  of  taking  up  the 
cross  and  following  Him,  so  we  cannot  regard  it  as  a  new 
idea;  but  as  the  three  chosen  disciples  came  down  from 
the  mountain  of  vision,  He  said  plainly,  after  speaking  of 
the  death  of  John,  whom  He  called  Elijah,  Likewise  also 
shall  the  Son  of  man  suffer  of  them*  It  is  true  that  we 
are  forbidden  to  regard  any  of  these  expressions  otherwise 
than  as  natural  forecastings  of  the  future  by  one  who 
could  shrewdly  interpret  the  present;  but  if  spoken  by 
Jesus  they  show  clearly  that  He  had  counted  the  cost  of 
the  part  He  had  chosen,  and  that  the  notion  of  death,  and 
apparently  of  violent  death,  entered  into  His  conception  of 
that  part.  At  all  events,  it  is  plain  that  this  was  the  notion 
which  the  Evangelists  had  formed  of  the  Messiah's  career 
before  they  wrote. 

Shortly  afterwards  we  find  Him  speaking  more  definitely: 
The  Son  of  man  shall  be  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  men : 
and  they  shall  kill  him.5  Here  then  we  have  the  two  ideas 
of  betrayal  and  of  violent  death.  It  is  not  hard  to  see  that 
each  of  these  ideas  could  be  sustained  by  reference  to 
Scripture ;  but  the  question  is  whether  either  of  them,  and 
certainly  that  of  betrayal,  was  one  which  was  likely  to 
suggest  itself,  as  a  necessary  element  in  the  Messianic 
character,  to  any  one  who  was  bent  upon  finding  a 
counterpart,  imaginary  or  real,  to  that  character  as  it 
existed  in  prophecy,  or  upon  combining  the  various  ele- 
ments of  it  scattered  throughout  the  Scriptures.  And  the 
most  natural,  not  to  say  the  only  possible,  answer,  is  that 
prior  to  the  fact  it  was  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

This  forewarning  of  betrayal  and  death  was  repeated 
with  additional  particulars  on  the  way  up  to  Jerusalem 
before  the  last  passover,  when  Jesus  said,  The  Son  of  man 
shall  be  betrayed  unto  the  chief  priests  and  unto  the  scribes, 
and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him 

3  St.  Matt.  x.  38 ;  xvi.  24.        4  xvii.  12.        5  xvii.  23. 


160  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

to  the  Gentiles,  to  mock,  and  to  scourge,  and  to  crucify  him:6 
and  immediately  afterwards  He  said  to  James  and  John 
that  the  Son  of  man  had  come  to  give  his  life  a  ransom,  for 
many  ; 7  declaring  not  only  the  fact,  but  assigning  a  reason 
for  the  fact.  We  find  once  or  twice  subsequently  an  indi- 
cation of  the  same  ideas  of  betrayal  and  of  violent  death 
pervading  the  language  and  the  mind  of  Jesus ;  so  that  we 
are  warranted  in  saying  that  if  this  was  not  His  own 
original  conception  of  the  part  He  had  assumed,  it  was  at 
all  events  regarded  by  the  Evangelists  as  essential  to  that 
part,  not  only  that  He  should  die  and  be  betrayed,  but 
should  foretell  His  betrayal  and  His  death.  We  lay  no 
stress  upon  the  prediction,  except  so  far  as  it  seems  to  have 
been  inherent  in  the  plan  of  the  Evangelists. 

Before,  however,  we  can  form  a  complete  conception  of 
their  plan,  there  is  at  least  one  other  important  point  which 
requires  to  be  noticed,  and  this  is  the  idea  of  resurrection, 
and  of  resurrection  within  a  definite  and  given  time. 
Following  for  the  present  St.  Matthew's  narrative,  we 
find  the  first  indication  of  this  thought  as  early  as 
the  twelfth  chapter,  when,  in  answer  to  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  who  sought  a  sign  of  Him,  Jesus  said, 
no  sign  but  that  of  the  prophet  Jonas  should  be  given 
to  the  men  of  that  generation;  for  as  he  was  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly,  so  the  Son 
of  man  should  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth ;  and  implied  that  His  own  deliverance 
should  be  greater  than  that  of  Jonas.8  Again  in  the 
sixteenth  chapter  He  repeats  the  same  sign.9  We  are 
shortly  afterwards  told  that  from  the  time  of  Peter's  con- 
fession of  Him  as  the  Christ,  He  began  to  show  unto  His 
disciples  that  He  must  suffer,  and  be  killed,  and  be  raised 
again  the  third  day.3  Again,  after  His  transfiguration, 

6  St.  Matt.  xx.  18,  19.  '  xx.  28. 

8  St.  Matt.  xii.  40,  41.          9  xvi.  4.          *  xvi.  21. 


v]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  161 

He  charges  the  three  disciples  to  tell  the  vision  to  no  man, 
until  the  Son  of  man  be  risen  again  from  the  dead  ;2  and 
once  more,  shortly  afterwards,  He  says  again,  And  they 
shall  kill  him,  and  the  third  day  he  shall  be  raised  again.3 
In  the  twentieth  chapter,  as  they  were  going  up  to  Jeru- 
salem, He  says  once  more,  And  the  third  day  he  shall  rise 
again.4"  And  at  the  last  supper  He  tells  His  disciples, 
After  I  am  risen  again,  I  will  go  before  you  into  G-alilee? 
That  is  to  say,  according  to  the  first  Gospel,  there  were 
seven  distinct  references  to  a  rising  again  from  the  dead, 
during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  to  which  we  must  add,  from 
the  same  source,  the  testimony  of  the  two  false  witnesses, 
that  He  had  said,  /  am  able  to  destroy  the  temple  of  God, 
and  to  build  it  in  three  days,6  and  the  taunt  based  on  this 
expression  with  which  He  was  reproached  upon  the  cross, 
together  with  the  application  made  by  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  to  Pilate,  Sir,  we  remember  that  that  deceiver  said, 
while  he  was  yet  alive,  After  three  days  I  will  rise  again.7 
All  this,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  is  in  addition  to  the 
Evangelist's  own  narrative  of  the  actual  resurrection  of 
Jesus  from  the  dead.  We  are  surely  justified  in  saying, 
then,  that,  supposing  the  Evangelist  to  have  sat  down  with 
the  intention  of  representing  his  master  as  the  Christ,  he 
had  conceived  the  notion  that  it  was  indispensable  He 
should  rise  from  the  dead,  and  rise  from  the  dead  the  third 
day,  in  order  that  His  character  and  history  might  corre- 
spond the  more  accurately  with  what  had  been  written  of 
it  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  where  was  there  anything  written  of  it  in  the 
Scriptures,  which,  prior  to  the  invention  of  the  story, 
could  by  any  possibility  have  suggested  the  invention  of 
it?  So  much  so  is  this  a  fair  and  reasonable  question, 
that  it  is  not  seldom,  I  fancy,  difficult  for  us  to  harmonise 

2  St.  Matt.  xvii.  9.  3  xvii.  23.  4  xx.  19. 

5  xxvi.  32.  6  xxvi.  61.  7  xxvii.  40,  63. 

M 


1 62  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

our  theories  of  Scripture  and  its  fulfilment  with  what  is 
stated  on  this  subject  in  the  apostolical  writings.  Our 
difficulty  rather  is  to  determine  whether,  and  to  what 
extent,  there  was  any  properly  so  called  fulfilment  of  the 
several  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  are  applied 
to  the  Lord's  resurrection  in  the  New.  Our  tendency  is  to 
vindicate  the  words  of  David  and  others  from  any  possible 
direct  reference  to,  if  not  from  any  legitimate  bearing  on, 
the  subject.  We  find  it  somewhat  of  an  onerous  task  to 
save  the  credit  of  the  apostles  in  their  treatment  of  these 
Scriptures,  and  feel  that  we  can  only  do  it  by  an  elastic 
use  of  the  Psalms  and  Prophets.  But  to  whatsoever  extent 
this  is  the  case — and  it  certainly  is  so  sometimes  and  to 
some  extent — precisely  to  the  same  extent  is  it  a  measure 
of  the  likelihood  there  was  of  such  Scriptures  becoming  to 
such  men  the  suggestive  origin  of  the  story  they  propa- 
gated. And  yet  it  is  obvious  that,  short  of  the  fact,  they 
not  only  had,  but  could  have  had,  no  materials  out  of 
which  to  construct  such  a  story  but  these  very  Scriptures 
themselves. 

The  Evangelists  were  men  who  were,  first  of  all,  con- 
cerned to  make  their  portrait  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  cor- 
respond outwardly  and  in  detail  with  that  which  they 
found  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say,  that  if  death  was  one  of  the  features  that 
might  have  occurred  .to  the  minds  of  attentive  students  as 
essential  to  that  character,  it  was  absolutely  impossible 
that  resurrection  from  the  dead  the  third  day  should  have 
done  so.  But  this  we  find  consistently  and  unvaryingly 
to  have  been  the  case — notably  so  with  the  synoptical 
Evangelists;  manifestly  so  with  St.  John  likewise.  It 
was  indispensable  to  the  notion  they  had  formed  of  the 
Messiah  when  they  sat  down  to  write,8  that  He  should 

8  It  is  hardly  needful  to  observe  that  this  position  is  independent  of 
the  question,  who  may  have  written  the  Gospels— whether  they  were  the 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  163 

suffer  and  die,  and  rise  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day. 
However  their  several  narratives  may  vary,  they  do  not 
vary  in  these  respects.  For  some  cause  or  other  they  had 
learnt  to  interpret  the  ancient  Scriptures  thus.  There  was 
and  could  be  no  question  as  to  the  verdict  of  these  Scrip- 
tures. All  men  knew,  or  could  ascertain  with  sufficient 
accuracy,  what  was  written  in  these  Scriptures.  To  those 
who  agreed  with  and  to  those  who  differed  from  themselves 
they  were  a  recognisable  standard  of  appeal.  If  the  cor- 
respondence they  alleged  did  exist,  it  was  at  least  remark- 
able; if  it  did  not,  the  idea  could  be  at  once  rejected. 
Every  one  knew  and  was  capable  of  appreciating  the  broad 
merits  of  the  case.  One  thing  we  can  see  and  determine 
for  ourselves — that  it  was  absolutely  impossible,  or  at  least 
in  the  highest  degree  unlikely,  that  these  existing  Scrip- 
tures should  have  suggested  the  invention  of  the  story  of 
Jesus  to  the  Evangelists,  if  it  was  an  invention. 

The  next  point,  therefore,  that  we  have  to  determine 
is  the  probability  of  the  main  features  of  the  history  of 
Jesus,  supposing  them  to  have  occurred  as  they  no  doubt 
did,  having  suggested  to  the  Evangelists  the  parallel  they 
drew  between  His  character  and  history  and  the  prophetic 
portraiture.  And  here  it  must  be  observed,  that  we  must 
leave  out  altogether  the  incident  of  His  resurrection,  be- 
cause, if  that  was  a  fact,  it  changes  at  once  the  whole 
character  of  the  argument.  On  this  hypothesis  we  are 
bound  to  assume  that  the  incident  of  the  resurrection 
was  the  imaginary  creation  of  the  Evangelists.  Whatever 
accident,  in  fact,  may  have  suggested  it,  the  only  Messianic 
materials  they  had  to  work  upon,  with  which  it  must  be 
made  to  correspond,  were  a  few  scattered  and  obscure 

premeditated  productions  of  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  or  the 
spontaneous  accretion  of  accumulated  Christian  tradition,  as  some  would 
have  us  suppose.  In  the  latter  case  the  phenomena  presented  would  he 
virtually  miraculous ;  in  the  former  they  would  be  fairly  open  to  the 
observations  in  the  text,  whether  the  actual  writers  were  known  or  not. 


164  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

allusions  in  the  Psalms  and  Prophets.  And  here  the 
improbability  is  precisely  as  great  as  it  was  before,  that 
the  narrative  of  the  prophet  Jonas  should  have  suggested 
to  four  independent  writers,  or,  regarding  the  synoptics  as 
essentially  one,  to  even  two  writers  so  independent  as 
they  and  St.  John  must  be  considered,  the  story  of  the 
Lord's  resurrection  the  third  day.  And  yet,  if  we  except 
some  obscure  words  in  the  prophet  Hosea,9  there  is  no 
other  Scripture  authority  or  allusion  to  which  its  origin 
can  possibly  be  referred.  And  yet  that  origin  must,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  be  distinctly  traceable  to  Scripture 
as  the  only  source  from  which  the  suggestion  could  have 
been  derived. 

The  same  may,  to  a  great  extent,  be  said  of  the  tri- 
umphant entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  of  His  being 
ordained  as  the  future  judge  of  the  world,  of  His  being 
crucified  with  two  thieves,  of  His  raiment  being  parted 
by  the  soldiers,  and  the  like,  about  which  the  several 
Evangelists  are  agreed,  or  at  all  events  are  not  at  variance. 
If  there  was  not  something,  in  fact,  answering  to  these 
various  circumstances,  there  was  unquestionably  not  suf- 
ficient in  any  of  the  several  Scriptures,  or  in  all  of  them 
combined,  to  suggest  the  invention  of  the  incidents  to  the 
writers.  For  what  was  there  to  guide  them  to  the  com- 
bination or  selection  of  these  several  Scriptures  ? 

And  certainly,  in  the  case  of  Jesus  Himself,  it  was 
manifestly  out  of  and  beyond  His  power  as  a  man  to  bring 
about  the  correspondence  alleged  between  some  of  these 
incidents  and  the  Scriptures  to  which  they  are  referred; 
as,  for  example,  His  triumphant  entry  into  Jerusalem,  the 
parting  of  His  raiment,  the  piercing  of  His  side,  and  the 
like. 

We  are  constrained,  therefore,  to  treat  these  and  similar 
incidents  as  if  they  were  the  mere  invention  of  the  Gospel- 
9  Hosea  vi.  2. 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  165 

writers,  and  not  part  of  the  original  plan  of  Jesus.  And, 
treating  them  thus,  we  are  at  liberty,  nay  rather  we  are 
bound,  to  ask,  Is  it  possible  that  the  Scriptures  alone  before, 
that  is  to  say  without  the  facts,  could  have  suggested  the 
narrative  of  the  facts  ?  And  is  it  possible  that  to  this 
question  there  can  be  in  the  mind  of  any  fair  and  unbiassed 
critic  or  student  any  answer  but  one  ? 

If,  therefore,  looking  at  the  matter  in  this  light,  we  may 
assume  the  several  incidents  to  have  been  facts,  the  further 
question  is  not  unreasonable,  and  occurs  naturally,  Is  it 
likely  that,  supposing  the  incidents  to  have  taken  place  in 
succession,  the  correspondence  between  them  and  the  Scrip- 
tures would  have  immediately  suggested  itself  to  the  minds 
of  the  disciples  ?  And  I  think  we  must  answer  No.  St. 
John  does  indeed  tell  us,  with  reference  to  the  resurrection, 
that  their  slowness  to  believe  it  arose  from  the  fact  that  as 
yet  they  knew  not  the  Scripture,  that  He  must  rise  again  from 
the  dead.1  We  involuntarily  ask  What  Scripture  ?  and  we 
may  rest  assured  that  a  remark  like  this  was  not  thrown  in 
to  give  a  greater  appearance  of  consistency  or  of  natural- 
ness to  the  conduct  of  the  disciples,  but  was  expressive  of 
their  real  attitude  of  mind  on  many  similar  occasions.  It 
was  not  before  the  fact  that  the  similarity  suggested  itself, 
it  was  not  immediately  after  the  fact  even  that  it  at  once 
occurred  to  them.  The  fact,  therefore,  was  not  created  by 
the  similarity,  but  much  more  the  similarity  by  the  fact. 
But  when  the  full  effect  of  the  combined  whole  was  borne 
in  upon  their  minds  by  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
then  and  then  only  it  was  seen,  in  the  light  of  His  presence, 
that  there  was  an  inexplicable  harmony  between  the  con- 
nected whole  of  their  Master's  life,  the  incidents  of  His 
personal  history,  and  the  majesty  of  His  Divine  character, 
and  the  portrait  sketched  generations  and  ages  before  by 
many  writers  in  various  times  and  under  varying  circum- 

1  St.  John  xx.  9. 


1 66  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

stances,  which  forcibly  brought  home  the  conviction  to 
their  minds  that  the  Jesus  whom  they  had  known  and 
served  and  loved  was  in  truth  the  promised  Messiah. 

Let  it  then  be  clearly  understood  what  is  the  position 
we  desire  to  assume,  and  what  are  the  conclusions  we 
would  base  upon  it.  There  is  and  can  be  no  question  that 
at  and  before  the  time  of  our  Lord  a  Christ  of  some  kind 
was  anticipated  solely  in  consequence  of  the  popular  in- 
terpretation passed  upon  the  Scriptures.  Prior,  however, 
to  the  fact  of  His  appearance,  not  only  had  no  such  Christ 
been  anticipated,  but  it  was  impossible  to  anticipate  such 
a  Christ  as  He  is  represented  to  have  been.  Either,  there- 
fore, there  must  have  been  a  substantial  basis  of  historical 
truth  in  the  Gospel  representation  of  the  Christ,  or  else 
it  must  have  been  an  imaginary  creation.  If  it  was  an 
imaginary  creation,  then  the  only  materials  out  of  which  it 
was  possible  for  the  Evangelists  to  create  it  are  before  us, 
as  they  were  before  them  and  before  the  men  of  their  time. 
We  know,  however,  that  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such  con- 
ception having  been  in  existence,  and  we  are  competent 
judges  of  the  actual  impossibility  there  was  of  this  con- 
ception being  created  out  of  the  materials  that  did  exist. 

To  take,  for  example,  one  single  instance.  St.  Matthew 
alone  of  the  Evangelists  records  the  slaughter  of  the  chil- 
dren at  Bethlehem,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  Josephus  or  any 
other  historian  of  the  age.  We  have  it  therefore  solely  on 
the  authority  of  St.  Matthew;  but  he  apparently  records 
it  for  the  sake  of  pointing  out  the  correspondence  between 
it  and  a  certain  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  which  is  no  doubt 
extremely  slender.  If,  therefore,  the  writer  invented  this 
story,  he  must  have  done  so  for  the  sake  of  this  very  slender 
correspondence,  and  for  no  other  imaginable  reason.  Surely 
then  we  are  not  incapable  of  returning  an  answer  to  the 
question,  Was  it  possible,  prior  to  the  fact  related,  that  the 
mere  existence  of  these  words  in  Jeremiah  should  have 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  167 

suggested  even  to  the  imagination  of  St.  Matthew  the 
invention  of  the  story  he  relates  ?  Given  the  occurrence 
of  the  fact,  one  can  partly  understand  the  application  of 
the  prophecy  suggesting  itself,  but  one  cannot  understand 
the  prophecy  alone  giving  occasion  to  the  invention  of  the 
alleged  fact.  It  is  at  least  reasonable  to  ask,  Is  it  more 
probable  that  the  story  should  be  true,  or  that  it  should 
have  originated  in  this  way  ?  For  it  could  have  originated 
in  no  other. 

And  it  is  the  same  with  the  great  bulk  of  the  Scriptures 
which  are  alleged  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  Christ  of 
the  Evangelists.  We  are  constrained,  therefore,  to  reject 
the  notion  that  the  Christ  whom  they  depicted  was  an 
imaginary  creation  of  their  own,  and  are  thrown  back  upon 
the  conviction  that  there  was  a  substantial  basis  of  his- 
torical truth  in  their  representation  of  the  Christ.  And, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  substantial  basis  of  historical 
truth  cannot  be  doubted. 

Given,  then,  this  undeniable  foundation  of  fact  in  the 
Evangelists,  the  question  next  arises,  How  much  of  their 
narrative  is  true  ?  And  here  we  must  of  course  reject 
everything  of  a  supernatural  character,  however  we  may 
account  for  it  consistently  with  their  general  reputation 
for  truth,  which  it  is  difficult  to  disallow.  It  must  be 
granted,  for  example,  that  we  know  nothing  of  the  charac- 
ter and  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  except  what  is  fairly 
deducible  from  the  Gospel  narrative.  The  teaching  of 
Jesus  Christ  either  was  what  it  is  represented  to  have  been 
in  the  first  three  Gospels,  or  this  is  how  the  writers  of  those 
Gospels  conceived  of  it.  In  the  latter  case,  they  must  be 
allowed  the  credit  of  whatever  estimate  is  formed  of  that 
teaching.  On  the  same  principle,  moreover,  we  cannot 
doubt  the  main  facts  of  the  history  of  Jesus;  as,  for 
instance,  His  birth  of  humble  parentage,  the  comparative 
seclusion  of  His  early  years,  the  brief  duration  of  His 


1 68  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT. 

ministry,  the  general  character  of  it,  the  purpose  and  aim 
of  His  conduct,  the  opposition  it  excited,  the  effect  it 
produced,  the  manner  in  which  the  crisis  was  precipitated, 
the  circumstances  of  His  death  and  burial,  the  incidents 
which  were  believed  to  have  followed  it.  Of  all  this  we 
know  nothing,  but  what  may  legitimately  be  drawn  from 
the  Gospel  narrative,  just  as  we  should  arrive  at  a  conclu- 
sion about  facts  from  any  other  narrative. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  this  narrative  may  legitimately 
be  suffered  to  bear  witness  to  itself  in  its  unmiraculous 
parts,  wherever  coincidences  can  be  discovered  which  can- 
not be  referred  to  design,  or  whenever  statements  are  made 
for  which  no  hidden  motive  can  be  detected.  And  when- 
ever, as  in  the  case  already  referred  to,  no  motive  can  be 
detected  but  a  desire  to  make  the  narrative  correspond 
with  prophecy,  we  may  fairly  compare  the  antecedent 
improbability  of  the  fact  with  the  improbability  of  the 
particular  fact  under  the  circumstances  having  been  sug- 
gested merely  by  the  prophecy. 

For  example,  is  it  more  likely  that  Hosea's  words,  "I 
called  my  son  out  of  Egypt,"  should  have  suggested  to 
St.  Matthew  the  narrative  of  the  descent  into  Egypt,  or 
that  that  descent  should  really  have  occurred  ?  Is  it  more 
likely  that  St.  John's  narrative  of  the  piercing  of  the  side 
should  have  been  suggested  by  the  words  in  Zechariah,  or 
that  the  side  should  really  have  been  pierced  ?  And  then, 
when  this  comparison  in  isolated  instances  is  found  to 
preponderate  largely  in  favour  of  the  events  related,  we 
are  in  a  better  position  to  estimate  rightly  the  cumulative 
effect  of  the  whole  combined.  There  can  be  no  question, 
for  example,  as  to  the  betrayal  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ. 
There  can  be  no  question  that  what  is  alleged  to  have  been 
said  of  those  events  in  the  Prophets  was  insufficient  to 
suggest  their  occurrence  to  the  minds  of  the  Evangelists. 
There  is  no  question  that  they  could  not  have  been  brought 


v.]  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  169 

about  by  any  arrangement  between  Jesus  and  His  dis- 
ciples. 

We  are  left  therefore  in  this  position,  that  we  have 
before  us  the  events  as  real  historic  occurrences  of  un- 
questionable authenticity,  and  we  have  also  before  us  the 
passages  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets  which  are 
known  to  be  of  far  higher  antiquity  than  the  narrative 
of  these  events,  and  to  which  they  are  referred.  We  are 
consequently  able  to  judge  of  the  degree  of  correspondence 
between  the  two.  That  there  is  a  correspondence  is 
undeniable.  That  what  correspondence  there  is  should 
be  the  effect  of  previous  arrangement  on  the  part  of  the 
prophets  is  impossible.  That  it  should  be  the  result  of 
the  manipulation  of  facts  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  is 
likewise  impossible,  where  there  is  no  other  ground  to 
doubt  the  facts,  and  where  this  correspondence  is  insuf- 
ficient to  have  created  them.  The  descent  into  Egypt, 
the  murder  of  the  innocents,  the  residence  at  Nazareth, 
the  removal  to  Capernaum,  the  method  of  teaching  by 
parables,  our  Lord's  love  of  retirement,  His  betrayal  by 
Judas,  the  circumstances  of  His  death  on  the  cross,  the 
parting  of  His  raiment,  the  piercing  of  His  side, — these 
and  a  hundred  other  things  can  neither  singly  nor  collec- 
tively have  been  originated  by  any  study  of  the  prophets, 
nor  have  derived  from  them  any  significance  which  they 
would  not  possess  as  facts  apart  from  the  narrative  of 
the  Gospels.  The  correspondence  between  them,  as  it  was 
not  suggested  by  the  Prophets,  so  neither  was  it  created 
by  the  Evangelists.  If  it  exists  at  all,  and  to  whatever 
degree  it  exists,  its  existence  is  independent  of  both. 

And  therefore  the  question,  and  the  only  question,  for 
us  to  determine  is,  What  is  the  correct  significance  and 
interpretation  of  this  correspondence,  being  such  as  it  is, 
neither  more  nor  less  ?  Is  it  a  pure  accident  ?  Is  it  one 
of  the  freaks  of  chance  ?  Is  there  no  meaning  in  it  what- 


170  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  [LECT.  v. 

ever?  Is  it  as  purposeless  and  as  meaningless  as  the 
formations  of  the  hoar-frost  on  the  window-pane,  or  the 
marvellous  combinations  of  the  kaleidoscope  ?  Or  is  there 
a  clue  to  its  meaning  ?  Does  the  Gospel  narrative  record 
the  one  event  in  history  which  is  the  interpretation  of  all 
history,  and  which  being  so,  was  transacted  on  a  plan  of 
which  indications  had  been  given  in  the  prophets  and  in 
the  history  of  their  times  ?  Are  we  right  in  inferring  the 
existence  of  a  purpose  which  began  to  be  carried  out  of 
old,  and  which  in  the  fulness  of  the  times  was  completed  ? 
And  was  it  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  this  purpose, 
if  it  existed,  could  not  be  anticipated  nor  discovered  till  it 
was  sufficiently  matured,  but  that  when  it  was  adequately 
fulfilled  it  revealed  itself?  This  is  at  least  a  theory  which 
would  appear  to  be  consistent  with  the  facts,  if  indeed 
there  is  any  other  by  which  the  facts  as  they  exist  can  be 
explained. 

At  all  events,  we  are  warranted  in  saying  that  unless 
there  is  a  method  more  consonant  with  reason  to  be  dis- 
covered of  accounting  for  the  broad  and  patent  Gospel 
facts,  the  historic  existence  of  the  Christ -idea  for  ages 
before  Christ  came,  and  the  alleged  realisation  of  that  idea 
in  Him,  is  no  slight  indication  of  its  origin,  and  may  be 
used  as  a  solid  foundation  on  which  to  rear  the  edifice  we 
have  yet  to  build. 


LECTURE    VI. 

THE   CHRIST  O'F  THE  ACTS. 


HcWes  o$v  edo^dcrdtja-av  KOL  ^eyaXvvdrjcrav,  otf  81  O.VT&V,  ?}  r&v  fyyuv  avruv, 
?}  TTJS  diKeuoTrpdyias,  fy  Karetpyda-avro,  O\\CL  dia  rod  ^eX^/iaros  avrov.  Kal 
8ta  ^eX^/xaroj  ai^rou  tv  X/)t(TTy  'If)<rov  K\f]6£vTes,  ou  SI  eavrdov  5t/ccu- 
i)5^  5ta  T^J  Tj/ier^pas  tro0tas,  ^  truv^o'eajs,  ^  eixrefieta.?,  $i  fyyiav,  cDj/ 
Ka.Tetpya<r<ifj,eda  fv  dcribT'rjTi  /ca/)5tas*  dXXa  5td  r^s  Trtcrreajs,  5t  i 
CITT'  al&vos  o  TravTOKpdrojp  0eds  tdiKaibHref  y  lara)  -^  56£a  ets  roi)s  otcD^as 
v.  —  Clem.  Rom. 


j'  Tr/i'  TrpavTrdSeiav  &va\a,86vT€S  hvaKrivaffde  eauroi^s  ei'  irlffTei,  8 
€<TTIV  (r&pj;  TOU  Kvplov,  Ko.1  iv  tiydiry,  8  e<TTtv  ai/jia.  'lyffov  Xpi(TToO.  —  Ignat. 
ad  Trull. 


LECTURE  VI. 

For  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  and  that  publicly,  shelving  by  tlie 
Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ. — ACTS  xviii.  28. 

TTTE  have  thus  far  been  led  to  see  that  there  were 
*  *  undoubtedly  anticipations  of  a  coming  Christ  among 
the  Jewish  people  at  and  long  before  the  commencement 
of  our  era ;  that  these  anticipations  were  produced  by  the 
influence  of  the  Scriptures,  and  by  them  alone ;  that  they 
were  more  or  less  indefinite  and  probably  inconsistent,  but 
that  the  portrait  of  Jesus  presented  in  the  Gospels  could 
not,  by  any  possibility,  have  owed  its  origin  to  the  scat- 
tered and  fragmentary  sketches  of  a  Messiah  to  be  found 
in  the  Old  Testament,  if  for  no  other  reason,  at  least  for 
this,  that  in  many  cases  it  is  not  by  any  means  clear  that 
they  referred,  or  were  understood  to  refer,  to  a  Messiah ; 
that  oftentimes,  prior  to  the  corresponding  facts,  there  was 
no  possibility  that  they  should  be  so  understood ;  that  the 
facts,  therefore,  alleged  to  correspond,  could  not  have  been 
suggested  by  the  particular  Scriptures,  or  invented  in  order 
to  correspond  with  them ;  that  this  is  more  especially  the 
case  in  points  of  minute  detail,  as,  for  example,  the  descent 
into  Egypt,  the  casting  lots  for  the  raiment,  and  the  like ; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  though  after  the  occurrence  of  these 
and  similar  incidents  it  is  conceivable  that  they  would 
make  deep  impression  on  the  disciples'  minds  when  viewed 
in  relation  to  the  several  Scriptures,  yet  it  is  not  by  any 
means  upon  such  minute  details  that  the  claims  of  Jesus 
must  ultimately  rest,  but  much  rather  upon  the  broad  and 


1/4  The  CJirist  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

patent  facts  of  His  history,  the  nature  and  far-sighted  and 
deep-searching  truth,  and  exquisite  beauty  of  His  teaching, 
the  purity  and  sublimity  of  His  moral  character,  the  mar- 
vellous wisdom  of  His  conduct,  the  unique  circumstances 
of  His  death,  and  the  cumulative  evidence,  when  all  things 
are  considered,  for  His  resurrection;  that  while,  however, 
these  features  of  His  character  may  be  presumed  to  be  as 
much  beyond  the  Evangelists'  powers  of  invention  as  the 
prophetic  correspondences,  it  is  even  more  improbable  that 
they  should  have  recognised  in  these  features  the  true 
realisation  of  the  prophetic  ideal,  or  that  such  a  Jesus  as 
they  represented  should  have  been  the  kind  of  Messiah 
they  would  have  chosen  to  depict ; — that,  in  fact,  it  is  no 
less  impossible  that  His  character  should  have  been  the 
outgrowth  of  Scriptural  study,  than  that  the  minor  inci- 
dents of  His  history  should  have  been  suggested  by  the 
language  of  the  prophets ;  and  that  consequently  there  is 
a  presumptive  reason  for  accepting,  not  only  His  character 
as  historically  true,  but  likewise  the  detailed  incidents  of 
His  history  as  real  occurrences ;  and  that,  having  done  so, 
we  are  in  a  position  to  attach  what  weight  we  please  to 
the  correspondences  between  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the 
several  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  they  have  been 
traced ;  but  that,  as  we  cannot  deny  the  prior  existence  of 
the  Scriptures,  so  neither  have  we  any  valid  ground  for 
rejecting  the  incidents  as  real,  or  for  doubting  antecedently 
their  possible  relation  to  the  Scriptures. 

Taking,  then,  the  Gospel  portraiture  of  Christ  as  resting, 
to  a  certain  extent,  upon  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  as  a  creation  which  it  was  impossible  should 
have  grown  out  of  them,  and  taking  it  also  as  representing 
historically  the  earliest  conception  of  the  actual  Christ,  we 
pass  on  to  review  another  aspect  of  Him — that,  namely, 
which  is  presented  to  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

And  here  it  must  be  understood  that  we  do  not  profess 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  175 

to  decide  upon  the  relative  date  of  this  book  and  any  one 
or  all  of  the  Gospels.  It  will  probably  be  allowed  that, 
whenever  it  was  written,  one  Gospel  at  any  rate  was  already 
in  existence.  But  what  we  mean  is  this,  that  whenever 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  any  or  all  of  the  Gospels 
were  written,  the  period  of  time  described  in  the  book  of 
the  Acts  was  certainly  subsequent  to  that  depicted  in  the 
Gospels.  They  represented  an  effort  to  reproduce  an  earlier 
time,  were  intended  and  understood  to  refer  to  an  earlier 
time,  and  so  far  may  themselves  be  regarded  historically 
as  expressing  an  earlier  conception  of  the  Christ. 

Again,  we  have  no  wish  to  assume  the  actual  historic 
accuracy  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  As  before,  we  must 
disregard  altogether  its  supernatural  statements.  But  when 
there  is  no  deliberate  motive  conceivable  for  misrepre- 
sentation, we  may  hold  ourselves  at  liberty  to  acquit  the 
writer  of  an  intention  to  misrepresent. 

And  certainly  we  have  a  right  to  regard  this  book  as 
the  earliest  and  the  only  existing  attempt  to  record  the 
history  of  the  first  years  of  the  Christian  movement.  All 
that  we  can  ascertain  of  the  earliest  phases  of  Christian 
life  must  be  derived  from  this  book;  so  that  if,  in  its 
broad  features,  we  may  not  trust  it,  we  are  without  the 
means  of  arriving  at  any  certain  knowledge  of  the  earliest 
history  of  the  Christian  church.  There  is  no  question, 
however,  that  to  this,  and  to  a  much  further  extent,  we 
may  fully  trust  it. 

For  example,  this  book  professes  to  record  the  origin 
and  earliest  fortunes  of  a  society  that  was  gathered  together, 
first  in  Palestine,  and  afterwards  in  Cyprus,  Asia  Minor, 
and  Greece,  in  consequence  of  the  preaching  of  some  of 
the  original  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  their  converts,  who 
proclaimed  Him  as  the  Messiah.  In  the  first  instance,  it 
was  always  the  Jews  to  whom  this  proclamation  was  made. 
In  some  cases  it  was  made  successfully,  and  the  Jews  were 


176  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

baptised  as  believers  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  were 
enrolled  among  the  members  of  the  new  society.  More 
frequently,  however,  the  Jews  manifested  a  determined 
opposition  to  the  idea  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ;  and 
then  the  maintainers  of  this  doctrine  proclaimed  it  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  in  many  cases  with  much  greater  and  with 
conspicuous  success.  I  think  we  may  fairly  say  that  there 
is  no  misrepresentation  of  the  matter  as  thus  stated,  and 
not  the  slightest  reason  to  doubt  that  the  earliest  known 
development  of  the  Christian  church  took  place  in  this 
manner,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  leads  us  to  suppose. 
At  all  events,  whenever  the  book  was  written,  this  was  the 
only  account  which  the  Christian  church  could  give  of  its 
own  origin,  or  the  only  account  which  it  seemed  probable 
would  commend  itself  to  the  Christian  society. 

And  there  certainly  is  no  doubt  that  the  state  of  things 
not  only  described  in  but  witnessed  to  by  the  existence  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  pre-supposes  an  earlier  condition, 
which  is  either  that  of  the  Gospels  or  such  as  the  Gospels 
have  attempted  to  describe.  That  is  to  say,  the  Acts  could 
not  have  been  written  without  the  previous  foundation  of 
the  personal  history  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Putting  the 
most  extreme  case,  that  the  book  was  a  pure  romance, 
its  very  existence  pre-supposes  the  existence  of  another 
romance,  which  must  be  that  of  the  Gospels  or  like  that 
of  the  Gospels.  It  pre-supposes  the  existence  of  the 
romance  of  the  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

It  is,  however,  likewise  impossible  that  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  can  have  grown  out  of  the  Gospel  narrative  as 
we  now  have  it.  Granting  the  existence  of  the  four  Gospels 
as  they  are  now,  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  human  ingenuity 
to  have  constructed  on  their  basis  such  a  sequel  as  the 
history  of  the  Acts  presents  to  us.  There  was  nothing  in 
the  construction  or  composition  of  these  Gospels  to  have 
suggested  a  continuation  like  that  supplied  by  the  Acts  of 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  177 

the  Apostles.  It  expresses  a  conception  as  entirely  original 
as  they  are  themselves.  Just  as  it  was  impossible  for  the 
Gospel  portraiture  of  Christ  to  have  been  constructed  out 
of  the  materials  supplied  by  the  prophetic  Messiah,  so 
was  it  impossible  for  the  Gospel  portraiture  of  Christ  to 
have  originated  the  conception  expressed  by  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  The  book  has  therefore  the  weight  and 
importance,  so  far,  of  an  independent  witness  to  Christ. 
We  cannot  regard  the  history  as  pure  romance.  No  one 
proposes  to  do  so.  In  its  ordinary  features  it  is  entitled  to 
the  credit  of  ordinary  history,  and  therefore  its  testimony 
to  Christ  is  in  addition  to  and  independent  of  that  of  the 
Gospels,  or  at  all  events  of  three  of  them. 

But  if  there  is  any  statement  in  which  we  may  trust 
the  writer  of  the  Acts,  it  is  in  the  fact  that  the  early 
disciples  proclaimed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  Christ. 
There  can  be  no  question  whatever  about  this.  The  very 
name  Christian,  which  attached  to  the  early  followers  of 
Jesus,  and  has  continued  to  attach  to  their  successors  ever 
since,  is  conclusive  proof  that  they  identified  Him  with 
the  promised  Messiah.  The  very  name  Christianity,  which 
is  our  greatest  glory  and  our  highest  problem  now-a-days, 
is  an  indissoluble  bond  between  us  and  the  early  church 
at  Antioch,  as  it  was  between  that  and  the  known  antici- 
pations of  the  Jewish  people  and  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

As,  however,  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  was  appa- 
rently the  author  also  of  the  Acts,  there  can  be  no  question 
as  to  the  identity  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  with  the 
Jesus  of  the  Acts.  And  as  antecedently  there  was  no 
reason  whatever  why  the  history  of  the  third  Gospel 
should  develop  into  the  history  of  the  Acts— as  no  one 
could  have  predicted  or  imagined  beforehand,  from  any 
one  of  the  other  Gospels,  or  from  this,  that  such  would  be 
its  development — there  is  perhaps  an  additional  presump- 
tion of  general  credibility  attaching  to  the  history  of  the 

N 


178  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

Acts  and  to  that  of  the  third  Gospel,  from  the  fact  of  the 
same  person  having  been  the  author  of  both.  If  his 
history  of  the  first  years  of  the  early  church  is  generally 
trustworthy,  then  the  greater  deference  is  probably  due  to 
his  narrative  of  the  life  of  Jesus;  or,  at  all  events,  we 
know  from  him  the  conditions  under  which  Jesus  was 
proclaimed  and  accepted  as  the  Messiah,  for  they  must 
have  been  substantially  those  under  which  He  is  presented 
to  us  in  the  third  Gospel. 

If,  however,  there  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  antecedent 
improbability  that  such  a  general  portraiture  as  he  has 
given  should  have  been  the  invention  of  the  writer,  and 
a  yet  further  improbability  that  the  history  he  has  given 
of  Jesus  should  be  followed  by  an  imaginary  sequel  like 
that  of  the  Acts,  or  that  such  a  sequel  as  that  of  the  Acts 
should  have  been  developed  out  of  it,  then  we  may  not 
unreasonably  infer  that  his  later  treatise  is  entitled  to  a 
degree  of  independent  consideration  and  deference,  seeing 
that,  if  not  in  this  way,  at  least  in  some  other,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  belief  did  gain  ground  and  spread  abroad  that 
the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  was  the  Christ. 

We  have  to  take,  then,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as  the 
earliest  known  record  of  the  spread  of  this  belief,  and  as 
a  record  which  may  in  the  main  be  trusted. 

And  it  appears  from  this  record  that  the  original  centre 
of  the  belief  and  the  place  where  it  was  first  propagated 
was  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  doubt  this. 
But  it  is  certainly  very  important.  According  to  the  same 
writer,  one  of  the  last  directions  given  by  Jesus  was  that 
those  who  were  intrusted  with  His  message  were  to  preach 
in  His  name  and  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem. 
Unexpectedly,  and  perhaps  in  a  manner  unintended  by  the 
speaker  and  unnoticed  by  the  writer,  both  conditions  were 
fulfilled  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  there  were  gathered 
together  and  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  devout  Jews  out  of 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  179 

every  nation  under  heaven,  as  there  very  probably  would 
be.  It  was  doubtless  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  many  that 
but  six  weeks  before  a  notable  execution  of  malefactors 
had  taken  place  in  the  city,  at  which  a  young  man  who 
had  achieved  a  remarkable  notoriety  in  a  remarkable 
manner  had  met  with  his  death,  owing  to  the  jealousy  of 
the  priests  in  consequence  of  his  extravagant  pretensions. 
All  this,  according  to  the  writer,  was  distinctly  stated 
by  Peter  in  his  address  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  And 
whether  or  not  it  was  stated  by  Peter,  the  facts  were 
unquestionably  known  and  could  not  be  disputed. 

But  the  marvel  is  that  there  was  no  disposition  to  hide 
them.  According  to  the  writer,  they  were  thrown  in  the 
teeth  of  the  audience.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that 
all  these  people  had  exactly  those  notions  of  the  Messiah, 
whatever  they  were,  which  were  prevalent  at  that  time, 
and  none  others.  They  had  then  nothing  whatever  to 
rest  on  but  the  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  the  popular 
anticipations  based  on  them,  and  whatever  change  of  sen- 
timent may  possibly  have  been  produced  by  the  preaching 
of  John  and  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 

On  this  foundation,  and  on  no  other,  any  conviction  of 
Jesus  being  the  Christ  had  to  be  based.  The  outward 
features  of  His  person  and  life  were  most  unpromising. 
But  there  is  no  trace  of  their  ever  having  been  presented 
otherwise  than  as  we  ourselves  know  them.  From  the 
first  it  was  that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  have  crucified  .  .  . 
whom  ye  slew,  having  hanged  him  on  a  tree,  that  was 
proclaimed  as  the  Christ. 

Nor  could  there  be  any  thought  more  hateful  to  the 
mind  of  a  Jew  than  the  notion  of  such  a  death.  It  was 
not  only  unwelcome  but  revolting.  It  was  most  opposite 
to  all  the  day-dreams  which  they  had  entertained  of  the 
Messiah.  It  struck  at  the  root  of  their  fondest  imagina- 
tions. And  yet  it  is  neither  to  be  denied  nor  questioned 


i8o  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

that  the  earliest  preaching  of  the  disciples  of  which  we 
have  any  record  was  of  this  character ;  and  as  a  matter  of 
fact  it  must  have  been,  because  we  know  nothing  of  Jesus 
Christ  if  we  do  not  know  that  He  died  upon  the  cross. 

Just,  therefore,  as  it  is  impossible  that  the  portrait  of 
Jesus  presented  to  us  in  the  Gospels  should  have  been 
created  out  of  the  materials  supplied  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, prior  to  or  without  the  corresponding  facts,  so  it  is 
impossible  that  the  early  success  of  the  disciples,  so  far  as 
they  were  successful,  should  have  been  created  by  this 
writer's  imagination,  or  should  have  been  substantially 
other  than  he  described  it.  Of  its  actual  success  we 
shall  have  abundant  proof  hereafter:  while  we  may  be 
sure  that  no  one  could  have  been  admitted  into  the  Chris- 
tian body,  or  have  called  himself  a  Christian,  who  did  not 
believe,  or  profess  to  believe,  that  the  Jesus  who  was  cru- 
cified was  the  Christ.  By  every  one  so  calling  himself  He 
was  identified  with  the  Jewish  Messiah. 

We  may  accept,  then,  without  a  particle  of  discredit,  the 
historian's  statement  that  the  Jesus  who  had  been  crucified 
was  proclaimed  as  the  Messiah.  The  first  fact  of  which 
we  may  be  certain  is,  that  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross 
was  an  undisguised  element  in  the  preaching  which  declared 
Him  to  be  the  Christ.  No  hesitation  as  to  the  historian's 
veracity  can  go  far  enough  to  warrant  us  in  distrusting  his 
accuracy  in  this  respect. 

But  then  there  is  another  point  which  his  narrative 
supplies.  The  principal,  if  not  the  sole  argument  to  which 
the  disciples  appealed  in  their  endeavours  to  exhibit  Jesus 
as  the  Christ  was  the  argument  from  Scripture.  This  also 
is  a  fact  which  it  is  impossible  to  question.  The  evidence 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  cumulative  and  very 
strong.  The  appeal  to  Scripture  is  the  staple  of  Peter's 
argument  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  To  the  multitudes 
assembled  in  Solomon's  porch  he  declared — Those  things 


VL]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  181 

which  God  before  had  shewed  ~by  the  mouth  of  all  his 
prophets,  that  Christ  should  suffer,  he  hath  so  fulfilled.1 
The  instruction  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  by  Philip  was 
based  upon  his  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah.  The  argument  from  Scripture,  and  none  other, 
must  have  been  that  by  which  Saul  confounded  the  Jews, 
which  dwelt  at  Damascus,  proving  that  this  is  very  Christ? 
At  his  first  interview  with  Cornelius,  Peter  affirmed  of 
Jesus — To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through 
his  name,  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission 
of  sins.3  At  Antioch  in  Pisidia  the  argument  from 
Scripture  was  that  which  was  dwelt  upon  by  Paul  the 
convert.  At  Thessalonica  we  are  told  of  this  same  Paul, 
that  he  went  into  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  and  for  three 
Sabbath  days  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the  Scriptures* 
concerning  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  The  Bereans  are  charac- 
terised as  being  more  noble,  or  of  better  origin,  than  the 
Thessalonians,  because  they  not  only  recognised  the  appeal 
to  Scripture,  but  searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether 
those  things  were  so5 — namely,  that  Jesus  was  the  prophetic 
Messiah.  The  same  argument  must  at  least  have  been 
included  among  those  with  which  the  same  apostle  reasoned 
in  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  Jews  at 
Corinth;6  and  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  same  argument 
should  have  been  altogether  omitted  when  for  a  year  and 
six  months  he  continued  in  that  city  teaching  the  word  of 
God,7  apparently  among  the  Gentiles  ;  or,  at  all  events, 
among  a  people  composed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Nor  can 
it  have  been  otherwise,  when  he  reasoned  with  the  Jews  at 
Ephesus,  as  it  were  by  a  dialectical  process,  bringing  them 
to  book  out  of  their  own  Scriptures.  It  was  manifestly  so 
with  the  Jew  named  Apollos,  lorn  at  Alexandria,  an  eloquent 
man,  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  who,  after  being  instructed 

1  Acts  iii.  18.  2  ix.  22.  3  x.  43.  4  xvii.  2. 

5  Acts  xvii.  11.         6  xviii.  4.          7  xviii.  11. 


1 82  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

in  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly,  mightily  convinced  the  Jews, 
and  that  publicly,  shewing  ~by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ?  And  lastly,  before  Agrippa,  Paul  declared — 
Having  therefore  obtained  help  of  God,  I  continue  unto  this 
day,  witnessing  loth  to  small  and  great,  saying  none  other 
things  than  those  which  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say 
should  come? 

From  this  evidence,  backed  as  it  is  by  a  mass  of  other 
evidence  to  which  we  need  not  now  refer,  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  the  fact  that  the  argument  from  Scripture 
was  that  mainly  employed  by  the  early  disciples  of  Jesus. 
The  historian  cannot  have  misled  us  here.  Even  if  his 
narrative  were  otherwise  unhistoric,  we  might  implicitly 
trust  it  in  this  respect.  The  speeches  ascribed  to  Peter,  to 
Philip,  and  to  Paul,  may  be  more  or  less  imaginary,  but 
they  cannot  be  wide  of  the  truth  as  far  as  regards  the 
method  of  argument  which  the  speakers  adopted. 

And  let  it  not  be  said  that  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  this  would  be  the  method  adopted  by  men  in 
their  position  when  arguing  with  Jews,  for  it  is  precisely 
upon  this  undeniable  fact  that  the  weight  of  our  own 
argument  rests.  Where  would  have  been  the  force  of  such 
reasoning  with  the  Jews  if  they  could  have  turned  round 
upon  the  disciples  of  Jesus  and  replied,  We  have  never 
looked  for  the  advent  of  any  Messiah,  nor  did  our  Scrip- 
tures ever  lead  us  to  expect  one.  It  was  precisely  because 
it  was  a  fact  so  well  known,  and  so  confessedly  incontro- 
vertible, that  the  premises  adopted  by  the  disciples  were 
actually  unassailed,  and  were  virtually  unassailable.  That 
the  Jews  should  not  have  travelled  with  them  to  their 
conclusions  is  easily  intelligible ;  but  with  respect  to  the 
premises  assumed  the  disciples  were  on  common  ground 
with  their  opponents,  and  there  was  neither  the  wish  nor 
the  ability  to  drive  them  from  it. 

8  Acts  xviii.  24-28.  9  xxvi.  22. 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  183 

But  it  is  not  a  little  strange  that  the  argument  from 
Scripture  was  not  by  any  means  confined  in  its  applica- 
tion to  the  Jews.  In  the  two  specimens  we  have  of  St. 
Paul's  method  of  dealing  with  persons  entirely  beyond  the 
influence  of  Jewish  teaching,  as  at  Lystra  and  Athens, 
there  is  of  course  no  direct  reference  to  Scripture,  however 
much  we  can  discover  the  traces  of  Scriptural  thought  and 
language  in  his  addresses ;  but  when  he  is  dealing  with  a 
mixed  assembly,  or  with  persons  who  may  be  presumed  to 
have  had  some  acquaintance  with  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
no  matter  whether  they  are  Jews  or  Gentiles,  he  employs 
this  argument  or  makes  allusion  to  Scripture  as  a  precious 
and  a  common  possession.  This  is  evident  from  his  own 
Epistles,  and  it  appears  also  from  his  speech  before  Festus 
and  Agrippa.  And  in  fact  it  was  not  possible  that  the 
appeal  to  Scripture  should  be  omitted  from  any  connected 
scheme  of  Christian  instruction,  because  it  was  impossible 
to  understand  what  such  elementary  terms  as  Christ  and 
Christian  meant,  without  pre-supposing  the  entire  frame- 
work of  that  written  record  of  revelation  which  the  ancient 
Scriptures  contained  and  constituted. 

The  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  wherever  it  went,  carried 
with  it  in  its  train  a  certain  unavoidable  and  preliminary 
acceptance  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  Unless  it  was  pos- 
sible to  divest  Jesus  of  His  inseparable  title  Christ,  and 
to  eviscerate  the  essential  and  inherent  significance  of  the 
name  Christian,  which  every  believer  in  Jesus  was  proud 
to  assume,  it  was  not  possible  to  do  away  with  an  implied 
admission  that  in  some  way  or  other  the  Scriptures  pointed 
to  and  were  fulfilled  in  Him. 

Since,  therefore,  we  cannot  as  a  matter  of  fact  get  rid  of 
these  Messianic  accidents  and  elements,  either  from  the 
portrait  of  Jesus  as  delineated  in  the  Gospels,  or  from  the 
earliest  records  and  traces  of  the  original  spread  of  the 
Gospel,  which  implied  and  involved  belief  in  Jesus  as  the 


1 84  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

Christ,  it  follows  that  we  miist  recognise  such  belief  both 
as  a  substantive  part  of  the  original  movement  which  we 
call  Christianity,  and  also  as  a  valid  and  potent  instru- 
mental cause  in  the  success  of  that  movement.  That  is  to 
say,  we  cannot  separate  the  early  success  of  the  Christian 
movement,  whatever  it  was,  from  belief  in  the  complete- 
ness of  the  parallel  between  Jesus  and  the  Christ  of  the 
Scriptures. 

And  yet  there  was  everything  in  the  conception  of  Jesus 
presented  to  us  by  the  Acts  to  contradict  and  to  do  violence 
to  those  notions  of  the  Messiah  which  had  been  previously 
entertained.  There  was  nothing  in  the  humble  lot,  the 
inglorious  career,  and,  above  all,  the  violent  and  disgrace- 
ful death  of  Jesus,  to  captivate  the  imagination  of  men 
who  hoped  for  a  powerful  and  victorious  king.  And  if 
this  portrait  was  unattractive  to  the  Jews,  it  can  scarcely 
have  been  less  so  to  the  Gentiles,  whether  they  were  repre- 
sented on  the  one  hand  by  the  intellectual  subtlety  of 
Greece,  or  on  the  other  by  the  imperial  pride  and  power 
of  Rome. 

The  position,  then,  at  which  we  have  now  arrived  is  as 
follows : — There  is  in  the  history  of  the  Acts,  divesting  it 
of  everything  miraculous  and  regarding  it  only  as  an  ex- 
pression of  early  Christian  life,  a  framework  of  personal 
history  pre-supposed,  which  is  substantially  that  of  the 
Gospels,  and  from  which  a  death  by  crucifixion  cannot  by 
any  possibility  be  eliminated.  The  particular  develop- 
ment, however,  of  Christian  life  portrayed  in  the  Acts, 
though  it  pre-supposes  such  an  earlier  history,  identical  in 
its  main  features  with  that  which  we  possess,  was  by  no 
means  to  have  been  anticipated  from  the  Gospels.  They 
may  even  be  regarded  as  the  result  of  an  endeavour  to 
supply  a  want  created  by  the  kind  of  movement  recorded 
in  the  Acts,  an  attempt  to  gratify  the  not  unnatural  curi- 
osity of  early  Christians.  And  even  supposing  that  in 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  185 

certain  details  they  were  untrustworthy,  it  would  still 
follow  that  in  the  broad  and  characteristic  features  of  the 
personal  life  of  Jesus  they  must  be  deserving  of  credit, 
because  without  such  a  foundation  of  fact  not  only  would 
the  incidents  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  be  inconceivable, 
but  also  the  kind  of  life  of  which  that  book  must  anyhow 
be  the  natural  expression  and  result. 

"What  we  may  term,  then,  the  Christ  of  the  Acts  is  a 
creation  to  a  certain  extent  distinct  from,  and  in  some 
sense  independent  of,  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  The 
Christ  of  the  Acts  comes  before  us  as  a  belief  already  in 
existence  and  operative;  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  a 
Person,  and  not  a  belief.  But  the  belief  is  a  belief  in  a 
person  similar  to  that  portrayed  in  the  Gospels ;  similar, 
that  is,  in  the  manner  of  His  life  and  death.  Though  one 
of  the  Gospels  may  be  by  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  it  matters 
not,  because  his  portrait  is  not  materially  different,  at  least 
in  these  respects,  from  that  of  the  other  Evangelists  ; 
while  his  later  narrative,  regarded  only  as  an  indication 
of  the  kind  of  people  for  whom  it  was  written,  may  be 
considered  as  giving  an  average,  or  even,  if  you  will,  a 
favourable  specimen  of  the  life  which  it  describes.  At  all 
events,  men  did  at  an  early  period  of  the  Christian  era 
travel  about  the  world  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  described 
to  have  done,  for  the  simple  purpose  of  proclaiming  the 
main  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  of  persuading  people 
that  He  was  the  Christ.  They  were  not  the  apostles  of  a 
political  creed;  they  cannot  be  suspected  of  any  ulterior 
motive ;  they  were  not  the  founders  of  a  philosophy,  the 
heralds  of  a  scheme  for  social  advantages  or  worldly 
advancement.  They  preached  that  a  man  had  lived  and 
died  in  Palestine,  and  that  He  was  the  Messiah 
of  before  by  the  prophets. 

And  there  is  no  question  that  wherever  they  were  suc- 
cessful, and  so  far  as  they  were  successful,  this  man  was 


i86  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

everywhere  and  always  accepted  as  the  Messiah.  Yet,  in 
His  character,  as  it  is  presented  to  us  in  the  Acts  and 
described  in  the  Gospels,  there  was  nothing  that  was  cal- 
culated antecedently  to  win  the  belief  that  He  was  the 
prophetic  Christ,  for  in  all  the  most  conspicuous  features 
He  was  very  different  from  what  might  have  been,  and  from 
what  actually  was  anticipated.  This  belief,  however,  was 
everywhere  produced  by,  or  was  nowhere  produced  without, 
the  Scriptures.  It  was  the  likeness  between  the  Jesus  who 
was  preached  and  the  Christ  of  prophecy  which  convinced 
men  that  the  one  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  other.  Whether 
or  not  this  was  what  we  should  consider  a  valid,  or  satis- 
factory, or  logical  means  of  bringing  about  the  particular 
result,  there  is  no  question  whatever  that  it  was  histori- 
cally the  means  by  which  the  result  was  brought  about. 
The  testimony  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  to  this  effect ; 
and  it  is  not  possible  in  this  respect  to  doubt  its  testimony. 
It  is  plain,  however,  both  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  we  have  not  yet 
taken  into  account  all  the  elements  at  work  in  bringing 
about  the  result  produced.  It  is  simply  impossible  that 
the  story  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  alone  should  have 
wrought  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  There 
must  have  been,  and  there  was,  another  element  combined. 
And  this  was  the  proclamation  that  He  had  risen  again 
from  the  dead.  The  history  of  the  Acts  may  be  accepted 
as  evidence  that  the  resurrection  was  proclaimed,  and  that 
its  proclamation  entered  to  a  very  large  extent  into  the 
preaching  of  the  disciples.  While,  as  we  have  seen,  it 
was  impossible  from  the  vague  and  obscure  statements  of 
Scripture  to  anticipate  or  invent  beforehand  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection,  it  is  easy  to  calculate  and  to  understand 
the  enormous  momentum  which  would  be  added  to  the 
weight  of  the  evidence  for  Jesus  being  the  Christ,  when 
it  could  be  definitely  announced  that  He  had  actually 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  187 

risen  from  the  dead,  and  when  the  present  agency  of  the 
Spirit  could  be  appealed  to  in  confirmation  of  the  fact. 

And  we  know  for  a  certainty  that  it  was  thus  that  the 
full  message  of  the  Gospel  was  proclaimed.  Jesus  could 
not  have  been  recognised  as  the  Christ  in  the  way  He  is 
represented  to  have  been  recognised  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  unless  we  may  throw  in  as  a  powerful  element 
in  the  early  preaching  of  the  disciples  the  announcement 
that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead.  It  was  alike  impossible 
that,  prior  to  the  Lord's  resurrection,  the  ingenuity  of  the 
disciples  should  have  detected  the  special  element  that 
was  lacking  in  the  power  and  efficiency  of  their  message, 
and  that  the  conviction  of  Jesus  being  the  Christ  should 
have  been  produced  without  the  declaration  that  He  had 
burst  the  bonds  of  death.  When  that  fact  had  been  pro- 
claimed, it  swallowed  up  all  the  shame  and  degradation  of 
the  cross,  the  lowliness  of  the  origin,  the  meanness  and 
the  poverty  of  the  lot  and  life  of  Jesus.  Then  that  life 
and  death  of  shame  and  suffering  became  invested  with  a 
new,  and  before,  impossible  glory.  Then  the  colours  of 
the  rainbow  which  spans  the  waterfall  were  seen  in  the 
brightness  of  the  rising  sun  as  it  fell  athwart  the  cloudy 
spray.  Then  a  new  meaning  was  given  to  the  grief  and 
triumph  of  the  Psalmist,  a  new  cause  was  revealed  for  the 
hope  and  longing  of  the  Prophet,  a  new  treasury  of  sub- 
stance and  expressiveness  was  added  to  the  shadows  and 
symbols  of  the  Law.  Then  it  was  that  the  regal  glories 
of  the  universal  King  were  identified  with  the  spiritual 
self-mastery  of  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  the  reed  that  was 
put  into  the  hand  was  hailed  as  a  nobler  sceptre,  and  the 
title  that  was  written  by  Pilate  was  recognised  as  a  truer 
ensign  of  royalty  than  those  of  the  mightiest  kings.  Then 
it  was  that  the  purple  robe  was  regarded  as  a  prouder 
token  of  majesty  than  the  imperial  vesture  of  the  Caesars, 
and  the  death  of  the  Eoman  malefactor  more  glorious  and 


1 88  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

heroic  than  the  death  of  the  warrior  in  the  shout  of 
victory. 

But  we  may  safely  affirm  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
incidents  of  the  death  of  Jesus  alone  and  by  themselves 
that  was  capable  of  bringing  about  this  change  of  sentiment. 
Neither  these  incidents  alone,  nor  any  combination  of 
them,  would  have  wrought  the  conviction  that  He  was  the 
Messiah.  There  was  another  element  wanting ;  an  element 
which  they  were  incompetent  to  suggest,  but  which,  when 
it  was  thrown  in,  was  all-powerful  to  interpret  and  to 
glorify  them.  It  is  obviously  true  that  we  cannot  argue 
from  all  this  to  the  reality  of  the  resurrection,  but  we  may 
legitimately  argue  from  it,  that  without  the  proclamation 
of  the  fact  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  risen  from  the  dead, 
the  conviction  of  His  being  the  Messiah  could  not  have 
been  produced ;  while  the  incidents  of  His  life  and  death, 
apart  from  His  resurrection,  were  alike  as  incapable  of 
originating  the  story  of  it  as  they  were  of  producing  that 
conviction. 

Not  only,  however,  was  it  impossible  that  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  being  the  Messiah  could  have  been  sustained  for 
a  moment,  or  propagated,  without  the  story  of  His  resur- 
rection, which,  according  to  the  Acts,  was  everywhere  and 
always  proclaimed,  but  there  are  certain  characteristics  of 
that  book  which  we  find  ourselves  at  a  loss  to  account  for 
on  the  assumption  that  the  story  was  fictitious.  And  it  is 
here  that  we  discover  the  greatest  contrast  between  the 
Gospel  history  and  the  history  of  the  Acts.  The  Gospel 
history  is  the  history  of  Christ  and  the  record  of  certain 
germinal  principles  inculcated  by  Him.  We  nowhere  see 
any  life  in  detailed  action  except  His  own.  The  glimpses 
that  we  catch  of  other  lives  serve  only  to  throw  out  His 
into  more  prominent  relief. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  is  altogether  different; 
and  necessarily  and  obviously  so.  There  we  have  not  the 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  189 

history  of  Christ,  but  the  history  of  Christian  life.  The 
person  of  Christ  is  entirely  withdrawn  from  view.  The 
Christ  that  we  meet  with  in  the  Acts  is  a  Christ  who  lives 
in  the  persons  of  His  followers.  In  the  Gospels  we  have 
no  such  phenomenon,  properly  speaking,  as  Christian  life. 
It  is  a  thing  unknown,  and  as  yet  not  experienced.  If  it 
exists  at  all,  it  exists  only  in  germ,  and  is  undeveloped. 
The  foremost  of  the  Apostles  behave  very  much  as  other 
men,  and  are  not  under  the  influence  of  any  more  powerful 
motive  or  impulse  than  that  of  personal  attachment  to  their 
Master,  which  is  scarcely  distinguishable  from  ordinary 
friendship.  The  last  chapter  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has 
given  us  a  picture  of  some  of  the  chief  disciples  pursuing 
their  ordinary  avocations  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  after  their 
Lord's  resurrection.  But  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  things 
are  entirely  changed.  We  no  sooner  open  the  first  pages 
of  that  book  than  we  find  the  character  of  the  disciples 
transfigured.  The  Peter  of  the  Acts  is  a  totally  different 
man  from  the  Peter  even  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  Depart 
from  me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  0  Lord:1  Master,  it  is  good 
for  us  to  be  here?  on  the  mountain  of  glory :  Lo  !  we  have 
left  all,  and  followed  thee:3  Woman,  I  know  him  not  ;4  by 
no  means  represent  the  same  man  that  comes  before  us 
immediately  in  the  Acts,  ready  to  place  Himself  at  the 
head  of  the  hundred  and  twenty  disciples,  to  indicate  the 
course  of  action  they  are  to  take,  and  to  reveal  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  mouth  of  David5 — ready 
again  to  interpret  an  unusual  phenomenon  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  as  more  nearly  fulfilling  the  words  of  the  prophet 
Joel  than  any  other  former  event6 — daring  to  confront  the 
murderers  of  Jesus  with  the  charge,  Him  have  ye  taken, 
and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain3 — and  rebut- 

1  St.  Luke  v.  8.        »  ix.  33.     St.  Matt.  xvii.  4.    St.  Mark  ix.  5. 

3  St.  Luke  xviii.  28.    St.  Matt.  xix.  27.    St.  Mark  x.  28. 

4  St.  Luke  xxii.  57.         5  Acts  i.  16.         •  ii.  16.         7  ii.  23. 


The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

ting  the  injunction  not  to  speak  at  all,  nor  teach  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  with  the  home-thrust  and  matter-of-fact 
argument,  Whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken 
unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye  ;  for  we  cannot  but 
speak  the  things  which  we  have  seen  and  heard.8  Here  we 
detect  the  presence  of  elements  which  are  altogether  absent 
from  the  Gospel  history — those,  namely,  of  Christian  life 
and  of  deliberate  and  unshaken  Christian  belief;  although, 
at  the  same  time,  there  are  traits  enough  of  individual 
character  to  show  the  identity  of  the  person  in  both  cases. 
But  not  only  so,  for  it  is  manifest  that  this  conviction 
of  the  disciples  is  most  infectious.  It  spreads  itself  in  all 
directions,  it  excites  the  special  animosity  and  opposition 
of  the  Sadducees,  as  it  naturally  would,  though  they,  with 
their  characteristic  indifference  and  apathy,  appear  to  have 
been  less  prominent  antagonists  of  Jesus  during  His  life- 
time than  the  Pharisees.9  It  communicates  itself  even  to 
the  priests,  it  penetrates  into  Samaria,  and  reaches  as  far 
as  Damascus.  The  new  society  is  found  to  increase  to 
such  an  extent  that  new  principles  of  organisation  have 
necessarily  to  be  adopted,  and  powers  of  deliberation  and 
of  self-government  are  spontaneously  developed,  of  which 
the  exercise  may  be  regarded  as  almost  if  not  entirely  new 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  All  this,  if  it  is  not  distinctly 
traceable  to  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  cannot 
by  any  possibility  be  separated  from  that  belief.  In  fact, 
the  belief  in  His  resurrection  was  the  motive  power  and 

8  Acts  iv.  19,  20. 

9  This  is  shown  in  a  very  simple  way.     The  Sadducees  are  only  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospel  history  some  eight  or  nine  times,  and  chiefly  in  St. 
Matthew  (Mark  xii.  18;  Luke  xx.  27):  the  Pharisees  appear  more  fre- 
quently, and  in  each  Gospel  they  are  always  mentioned  first,  and  nearly 
always  with  disapproval  expressed  or  implied.     In  the  Acts  the  Pharisees 
are  never  unfavourable  to  the  believers  in  Jesus,  and  even  take  their  part 
(Acts  v.  34 ;  xxiii.  9) ;  while  the  Sadducees,  on  the  three  occasions  they 
are  mentioned,  are  their  strenuous  opponents,  (iv.  1 ;  v.  17 ;  xxiii.  7.) 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  191 

impulse  of  it  all,  for  it  was  involved  in  the  conviction  of 
His  being  the  Messiah,  for  which  the  disciples  and  their 
followers  were  willing  to  forego  everything,  and  to  incur 
anything. 

Such,  then,  is  the  picture  of  Christian  life  presented  to 
us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  impossible  to  ques- 
tion its  general  accuracy,  because  it  is  capable  of  abundant 
corroboration  from  other  sources.  There  is  nothing,  how- 
ever, directly  answering  to  it  in  the  Gospel  history,  for  the 
conduct  of  Jesus  was  arranged  on  a  different  plan,  and  the 
persecution  of  Jesus  arose  from  a  different  cause.  This 
manifestation,  therefore,  of  Christian  life  was  an  entirely 
new  phenomenon,  possessing  new  and  original  features 
never  exhibited  before,  and  pointing  consequently  to  a  new 
and  original  cause.  This  cause  we  may  rightly  specify  as 
the  personal  influence  of  Jesus — not  the  influence  of  His 
teaching,  because  as  far  as  we  can  tell  from  the  Acts,  the 
disciples  do  not  seem  to  have  reproduced  His  teaching; 
they  were  concerned  less  with  His  teaching  than  with 
Him;  but  it  was  His  personal  influence  and  attachment 
to  His  person.  If,  however,  attachment  to  His  person 
while  He  was  alive  had  produced  no  such  results,  why 
should  it  produce  these  results  now  He  was  dead  ?  In 
fact,  the  attachment  exhibited  was  in  no  sense  attachment 
to  one  departed,  nor  to  the  principles  for  which  He  had 
died,  but  much  rather  to  a  person  whose  direct  influence 
was  still  present  and  operative ;  it  was  devotion  to  a  new 
set  of  principles,  to  new  truths,  and  above  all,  to  a  new 
fact  of  which  the  full  weight  and  significance  had  not  been 
felt  before,  as  during  His  lifetime  it  had  not  been  possible 
to  feel  it. 

In  reading  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  cannot  fail  to 
see  that  we  have  entered  on  the  stream  of  a  new  life,  to 
which  even  the  Gospel  history  offers  no  true  parallel.  We 
note  the  spontaneous  action  and  development  of  a  new: 


192  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

society  working  on  new  principles  and  for  new  purposes, 
and  the  mainspring  of  all  this  is  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord. 

It  is  not,  however,  to  be  forgotten,  that,  as  far  as  the 
history  of  this  new  life  is  unfolded  to  us  in  the  Acts,  it  is 
not  even  to  be  referred  exclusively  to  the  Lord's  resurrection. 
Omnipotent  as  that  fact  might  be  considered  in  itself,  if  a 
fact,  it  lay,  comparatively  speaking,  dormant  in  the  minds 
of  the  disciples  for  a  period  of  fifty  days.  Its  power  was 
but  imperfectly  understood  till  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Then 
it  burst  forth  with  a  sudden  accession  of  life.  Peter  had 
indeed  felt,  in  the  interval  between  the  ascension  and 
Pentecost,  that  one  must  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with 
him  and  his  fellows  to  the  Lord's  resurrection;  he  must 
have  had,  therefore,  a  fore-feeling  of  what  his  own  mission 
was  to  be,  but  we  read  of  no  missionary  effort  whatever 
during  the  period  of  the  fifty  days.  We  read  further  in 
this  narrative  that  the  disciples  were  commanded  to  tarry 
at  Jerusalem  until  they  should  be  endued  with  power  from 
on  high.  We  may  safely  infer  from  this  that  in  the  opinion 
of  the  writer  it  was  not  even  the  bare  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection that  was  sufficient  to  call  the  new  society  into 
existence,  but  the  revelation  of  a  new  dynamical  force 
consequent  upon  the  resurrection  and  in  addition  to  it. 
The  writer  wished  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  a 
new  energy  had  begun  to  be  put  forth,  and  that  the  mate- 
rials with  which  it  worked  were  the  life  and  death,  the 
resurrection  and  ascension,  but  pre-eminently  the  resur- 
rection, of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Not  these  facts  alone,  but 
these  facts  wielded  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  had 
wrought  with  a  new  influence  upon  men,  and  had  produced 
new  results  in  men. 

And  though  it  is  possible  that  we  may  not  be  com- 
petent judges  of  the  cause  alleged  to  be  in  operation,  we 
are  to  a  certain  extent  competent  judges  of  the  results 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  193 

produced.  And  of  these  results  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
is  a  sufficient  proof.  Leaving  out  of  the  question  all  the 
miraculous  features  of  that  book,  the  picture  it  has  pre- 
served to  us  of  the  early  Christian  society  is  absolutely 
unique  in  the  literature  of  the  world.  What  if  that  picture 
can  be  shown  to  be  misrepresented  or  overdrawn  ? — it  even 
then  remains  to  a  very  large  extent  a  witness  to  the  ex- 
istence of  a  new  society  capable  of  appreciating  the  mis- 
representation ;  it  is  a  proof  of  a  new  literary  taste  among 
men,  for  the  existence  and  origin  of  which  some  rational 
account  must  be  given.  It  professes  itself  to  supply  the 
true,  and  is  the  only  extant,  account.  It  is  actually,  in  all 
substantial  particulars,  of  unimpeachable  authority,  and 
consequently  the  picture  it  presents  may  be  taken  as  a 
proof  of  the  mode  in  which  the  new  influence  operated 
among  men,  and  of  the  peculiar  results  produced  by  it. 

And,  assuredly,  these  results,  as  we  see  them  there,  can 
only  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  a  new  life,  while  the  new 
life  is  itself  the  evidence  of  a  new  principle  of  life  at  work, 
and  this  new  principle  of  life  is  the  principle  of  deathless 
and  eternal  life  revealed  and  exemplified  in  the  actual 
resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Nor  is  there  any  way  of  escaping  from  this  or  a  similar 
conclusion  but  by  referring  the  results  produced,  not  to 
the  fact  believed,  but  to  the  belief  of  the  fact.  The  mar- 
vellous phenomena  of  the  new  Christian  life  displayed  in 
the  Acts  were  simply  the  product  of  the  faith  of  the  dis- 
ciples. They  were  the  victims  of  their  own  delusions,  and 
their  own  delusions  produced  these  effects.  Their  own 
delusions,  it  must  be  remembered,  were  these — that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  as  proved  by  His  life,  and  death,  and 
resurrection,  and  as  witnessed  and  confirmed  by  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  which  alone,  as  it  appeared,  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  Christian  society,  in  spite  of  all  un- 
favourable circumstances,  could  be  referred. 

0 


194  TJte  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

If,  then,  the  outward  circumstances  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
were  most  unfavourable  to  His  claims  to  be  the  Christ,  no 
less  so  were  those  of  the  early  Christian  society  to  the 
diffusion  of  that  belief ;  and,  seeing  that  the  cardinal  fact 
of  that  belief  was  one  which,  if  unreal,  at  once  admitted 
of  a  ready  and  complete  disproof,  it  appears  that  the  most 
natural  and  rational  way  of  accounting  for  the  diffusion  of 
the  belief  is  by  supposing  that  the  fact  could  not  be  dis- 
proved. When  we  consider  who  were  the  first  propagators 
of  the  belief,  where  they  first  propagated  it,  the  means 
employed  in  doing  so,  and  the  success  with  which  they 
did  so,  it  appears  certainly  more  reasonable  to  interpret 
these  things  as  indications  of  an  underlying  element  of 
truth,  than  to  assume,  in  the  face  of  them,  that  the  crucial 
test  of  Jesus  being  the  Christ  was  one  which  neither  was 
nor  could  be  applied,  and  that  with  the  failure  of  that  test 
every  vestige  of  His  claims  to  be  regarded  as  the  Christ 
of  necessity  came  to  nought. 

But  this  is  not  all,  for  we  are  competent  judges  also  of 
the  general  moral  tendency  and  character  of  the  new  life 
depicted  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  When  men,  without 
hope  or  prospect  of  temporal  advantage  or  reward,  could 
live,  as  the  first  disciples  lived,  in  the  fear  and  love  of 
God,  and  suffer,  as  they  suffered,  rejoicing  that  they  were 
counted  worthy  to  suffer  shame  for  the  name  of  Jesus,  we 
are  constrained,  in  spite  of  ourselves,  to  decide  whether 
the  fruits  produced  were  those  of  the  good  tree  or  the  bad ; 
whether  they  were  worthier  of  the  spirit  of  evil  or  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  conscience  itself  seems  to  determine  that 
it  is  not  possible  to  reject  these  things  as  the  special  mani- 
festations of  the  Holy  Spirit's  working.  To  do  so  would 
but  too  nearly  resemble  what  is  spoken  of  in  the  Gospels 
as  the  unpardonable  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

We  point,  then,  not  to  the  miraculous  features  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  commonly  understood,  but  to  the 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  195 

far  greater  miracle  of  the  new  and  Divine  life  which  that 
book  exhibits  in  operation,  as  the  irresistible  proof  of  the 
new  and  Divine  energy  at  work  in  the  world ;  and  we  say 
that  it  would  be  a  libel  on  the  truth  to  suppose  that  such 
results  could  be  sufficiently  accounted  for  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  they  were  created  by  a  belief  which,  if  not 
literally  and  virtually  true,  was  entirely  and  absolutely 
false. 

The  results  referred  to  were  the  direct  consequence  of 
faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  To  His  being  the  Messiah, 
not  only  faith  in  His  resurrection  was  essential,  but  much 
more  the  fact  that  He  had  truly  risen  from  the  dead.  If 
He  was  merely  believed  to  have  risen,  but  had  not  risen 
from  the  dead,  then  He  could  in  no  sense  be  the  Messiah 
— the  belief  in  His  Messiahship  was  based  upon  a  false- 
hood, and  to  that  falsehood  must  be  attributed,  as  the  sole 
and  direct  cause,  all  the  marvellous  phenomena  of  moral 
regeneration  and  of  new  spiritual  life  to  which  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  is  an  undeniable  witness. 

There  is  and  can  be  no  manner  of  question,  that  faith 
in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  came  upon  men  with  the  force  of  a 
new  and  Divine  principle  of  life,  producing  results  most 
opposite  to  the  naturally  selfish  and  unloving  tendencies 
of  the  human  heart,  and  purifying  the  springs  of  indi- 
vidual and  social  existence  to  a  degree  with  which  nothing- 
can  compare.  Nor  has  this  original  impulse  ever  spent 
itself.  Nowhere  in  history  do  we  find  it  so  pure  and 
strong  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  There  we  see  it 
bubbling  up  from  the  fountain-head  clear,  and  bright,  and 
sparkling  as  it  is  destined  never  to  be  again;  but  the 
stream  that  issues  from  the  fountain  has  never  failed  to 
this  hour,  nor  can  it  ever  fail.  The  fountain  is  perennial 
as  the  source  of  truth  itself,  and  the  head  of  that  fountain 
is  Jesus  as  the  Christ. 

In  the  historic  development,  then,  of  the  doctrine  of 


196  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

the  Christ,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  has  its  place.  It 
shows  us  the  earliest  known  phases  of  belief  in  Jesus  as 
the  Christ.  It  exhibits  a  belief  in  the  entire  framework 
of  the  Gospel  history  concerning  Him  as  in  vogue  among 
men: — His  life  of  persevering  goodness,  His  wonderful 
works,1  His  betrayal,2  His  rejection  in  favour  of  Barabbas,8 
the  share  of  Pilate  in  His  execution,4  His  violent  death 
by  crucifixion,5  His  burial,6  His  resurrection  from  the  dead 
the  third  day,7  His  frequent  appearance  during  forty  days 
after  His  resurrection,8  His  ascension  into  heaven,9  His 
session  on  the  right  hand  of  God,10  His  return  to  judg- 
ment,11 His  Divine  Sonship,12  His  office  as  the  appointed 
channel  of  forgiveness,18  and  of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,14 
His  being  made  loth  Lord  and  Christ,15  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour™  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  to  be  a  light  of 
the  Gentiles.17  We  cannot  question  that  all  this  was  a 
part  of  the  earliest  known  belief  of  those  people  who 
were  called  Christians  first  in  Antioch. 

But,  furthermore,  we  find  these  people  from  the  first 
baptising  believers  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,18  or  of 
Jesus  as  the  Lord,  and  of  their  breaking  bread19  in  token 
of  their  fellowship  with  one  another  and  with  the  Lord. 
Now,  the  former  of  these  customs,  namely  baptism,  is  not 
to  be  accounted  for  by  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.  There  is 
no  reference  in  it  to  any  such  command  by  Jesus;  and 
yet,  on  the  testimony  of  the  Acts,  the  universal  prevalence 
of  the  custom  is  not  to  be  denied.  The  prevalence  of  the 
custom,  then,  from  the  first,  is  a  presumptive  witness  to 
some  injunction  having  been  given  respecting  it.  The 
only  possible  inference  is,  that  the  injunction  was  given 
by  Jesus ;  but  there  are  few  more  striking  phenomena  in 

1  Acts  x.  38.  2-  i.  16;  vii.  52.  8  ii.  14.  4  ii.  13.  B  ii.  23;  v.  30. 
6  xiii.  29.  ^  x.  40.  8  i.  3;  x.  41.  9  ii.  34.  10  v.  31.  n  x.  42. 
12  iii.  13;  iv.  27,  etc.  13  x.  43.  14  ii.  38.  15  ii.  36.  16  v.  3i. 
17  xiii.  47.  18  ii.  38;  viii.  16,  etc.  19  ii.  42,  46;  xx.  7. 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  197 

the  records  of  the  early  church  than  the  silence  of  St. 
Luke's  Gospel  on  the  matter  of  baptism,  and  the  pro- 
minence of  the  rite  in  his  history  of  the  Acts.  The  latter 
book  is  an  unimpeachable  witness  to  the  early  prevalence 
of  the  custom;  but  the  custom  is  itself  a  witness  to  a 
prior  belief  in  Jesus,  and  a  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ. 
What  manner  of  man  the  Jesus  believed  in  was  we  have 
already  seen ; — one  who  was  betrayed,  crucified,  dead,  and 
buried;  one  who  had  risen  from  the  dead  and  ascended 
into  heaven.  It  was  impossible  that  one  who  was  crucified 
and  buried  merely  should  have  been  the  Christ,  or  have 
been  supposed  to  be  the  Christ.  The  only  means  by  which 
his  death  could  become  not  simply  glorified,  but  divested 
of  its  inherent  shame,  was  by  a  belief  in  that  which,  prior 
to  the  fact,  it  was  not  possible  to  anticipate  from  the 
scanty  and  obscure  allusions  in  the  Scriptures,  and  which, 
after  the  proclamation  of  the  fact,  had  nothing  to  rest  on 
but  those  obscure  allusions,  unless  it  was  the  reality  of  the 
fact  proclaimed. 

We  may,  therefore,  take  the  prevalence  of  baptism  and 
the  breaking  of  bread  as  a  clear  indication  of  the  personal 
influence,  the  personal  command,  and  consequently  of  the 
personal  life,  of  Jesus.  We  have  nothing  to  which  to 
refer  these  customs,  unless  it  be  the  direct  command  of 
Jesus,  to  which  in  three  of  the  Gospels  the  breaking  of 
bread  is  referred,  and  to  which  in  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark  the  practice  of  baptism  is  referred. 

Thus  the  history  of  the  Acts  is  a  direct  witness  to  a 
previously  existing  life,  and  to  a  belief  that  the  person  so 
existing  was  the  Christ  of  prophecy.  The  principal  agency 
employed  in  producing  the  belief  was  that  of  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament.  By  them  the  Jews  were  con- 
founded, or  were  mightily  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ. 

And  so  the  history  may  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  the 


198  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

historic  reality  both  of  the  person  and  of  the  Messianic 
office  which  He  claimed  to  fill.  Men  could  not  have  been 
called  Christians  had  that  office  been  an  unreality,  an  idea 
which  had  no  existence,  or  which  rested  on  no  ostensible 
foundation.  Jesus  could  not  have  been  believed  in  as  the 
fullest  realisation  of  that  idea  if  His  life  had  been  a 
shadow  and  not  an  historic  existence.  Shadows  do  not 
originate  customs  so  definite  and  so  persistent  as  those  of 
baptism  and  the  breaking  of  bread.  The  Christ  of  the 
Acts  is  a  phenomenon  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  but 
on  the  supposition  of  the  prior  existence  of  the  Christ  of 
the  Gospels.  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  however,  is  a 
conception  entirely  distinct  from  the  Christ  of  the  Acts, 
and  cannot  have  been  originated  in  order  to  account  for 
the  phenomena  presented  by  that  book.  Without  the 
foundation  of  a  human  life  similar  to  that  of  Jesus,  the 
history  of  the  Acts,  containing  such  a  substantial  frame- 
work of  truth  as  we  know  it  must  contain,  could  not  have 
been  written. 

But  just  as  it  was  impossible  that  the  Christ  of  the 
Gospels  should  have  been  constructed  out  of  the  Messianic 
materials  previously  existing  in  the  Scriptures,  so  is  it  even 
more  clearly  impossible  that  the  Christ  of  the  Acts  should 
have  been  constructed  out  of  those  materials.  And,  in 
fact,  the  apparent  and  conspicuous  unlikeness  between  the 
Christ  of  the  Acts  and  the  Christ  of  prophecy  affords  a 
strong  presumptive  argument  that  the  belief  in  Jesus  as 
the  Christ  could  not  have  obtained  to  the  extent  it  did  but 
for  the  underlying  fact  of  the  resurrection.  It  was  that 
fact  alone,  and  not  the  belief  in  the  fact,  which  gave 
whatever  semblance  of  probability  there  was  to  the  state- 
ment that  He  was  the  Christ.  That  such  a  statement 
should  have  been  to  a  large  extent  discredited,  being  as  it 
was  contrary  to  all  experience,  is  in  no  way  surprising; 
that  it  should  have  been  believed  so  firmly,  so  widely,  and 


vr.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  199 

with  such  results  as  it  was,  affords  the  strongest  possible 
presumption  that  the  faith  had  been  created  by  the  fact, 
and  not  the  fact  invented  by  the  faith.  For  every  indi- 
vidual who  believed  the  fact  did  so  with  precisely  the 
same  reason  for  disbelieving  which  they  had  who  rejected 
it. 

The  picture  of  Christian  life,  then,  presented  in  the  Acts, 
is  the  necessary  and  natural  result  of  the  picture  of  the 
life  of  Christ  presented  in  the  Gospels :  the  necessary  and 
natural  result,  if  that  life  was  a  reality,  but  by  no  means 
natural  or  necessary  if  it  was  not :  by  no  means  an  obvious 
result  if  that  life  was  an  invention ;  by  all  means  an 
unnatural  and  an  impossible  result  if  that  life  was  unreal 
or  was  other  than  it  professed  to  be. 

The  history  of  the  Acts  was  the  most  vivid  illustration 
of  the  words — Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also.  The  Gospels 
contained  the  narrative  of  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do 
and  teach.  The  Acts  contained  the  record  of  what  He 
still  taught  and  did  after  His  visible  presence  was  with- 
drawn. It  was  not  the  spirit  of  His  teaching  which  pro- 
duced these  results,  but  the  power  of  His  unseen  personal 
presence  and  influence.  The  evidence  of  His  life  was  in 
the  life  and  action  of  His  followers.  There  was  a  new 
development  or  manifestation  of  His  existence,  a  develop- 
ment which  would  have  been  impossible  had  His  existence 
been  unreal. 

Of  the  historic  existence  of  this  new  development  there 
can  be  no  doubt :  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  not  the  only, 
though  it  may  be  the  oldest  and  most  original,  monument 
— a  monument  which  is  a  permanent  illustration  of  the 
truth  that  Christian  life  is  an  evidence  of  the  life  of 
Christ.  It  is  impossible  to  account  for  the  phenomena 
of  Christian  life  when  displayed  in  their  simplest  and 
purest  forms,  as  they  are  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,, 
except  on  the  supposition  of  the  unseen  life  of  Christ. 


2OO  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  [LECT. 

The  pulses  of  spiritual  life  are  to  be  felt  in  all  ages  and 
in  every  clime,  but  the  heart  from  which  they  are  derived 
is  in  heaven.  If  the  pulse  of  regenerate  life  is  felt  to  beat 
within  ourselves,  we  shall  not  question  the  source  from 
whence  it  is  derived.  We  shall  know  that  it  can  have  no 
origin  but  one,  and  that  origin  the  living  person  of  the 
Lord.  If  we  are  strangers  to  the  reality  of  His  life  in  our 
own  hearts,  we  may  well  question  its  reality  in  Him,  for 
we  shall  lack  the  highest  evidence  which  can  be  offered  to 
the  world  or  to  ourselves — the  only  evidence,  in  fact,  which 
can  ever  be  complete,  the  evidence  of  life  derived  from 
life.  If  we  are  conscious  of  a  new  life  within,  we  shall 
know  that  it  cannot  be  referred  to  nature,  or  to  self,  or  to 
our  fellow-men — that  it  is  not  of  the  earth  earthy,  but  to 
be  referred  only  to  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  ;  which 
were  lorn  not  of  Hood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God.1  This  is  the  simplest  and  the 
only  true  explanation  which  can  be  given  of  the  phe- 
nomenon of  Christian  life.  It  is  a  life  which  Christ  gives 
to  as  many  as  receive  Him,  and  believe  on  His  name.  It 
is  a  life  which  is  unique  in  the  history  of  the  world — 
unique  as  it  was  seen  in  germ  in  the  manifested  life  of 
Christ,  and  unique  as  it  was  displayed  in  its  earliest  efforts 
at  development  in  the  life  and  action  of  His  first  disciples. 
If  the  stream  of  its  existence  had  come  to  an  end  we 
might  hesitate  to  decide  about  its  origin;  but  as  every 
Christian  has  within  himself  a  life  which  answers  to  that 
of  the  first  believers,  and  which  he  cannot  but  recognise 
as  identical,  or  at  least  as  cognate  with  it,  he  knows  that 
the  stream  is  flowing  still,  and  is  destined  to  flow  on  for 
ever ;  and,  consequently,  we  cannot  consider  it  premature 
to  adopt  the  inference  suggested  by  Gamaliel  eighteen 

1  St.  John  i.  12,  13. 


vi.]  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  201 

centuries  ago,  and  to  decide  that  a  stream  which  has 
flowed  with  a  volume  so  deep,  and  broad,  and  strong, 
must  have  its  fountain-head  with  God. 

We  might  indeed  tremble  for  the  future  of  Christianity 
if  God  had  left  Himself  utterly  without  witness  in  the 
present,  and  we  were  thrown  back  only  on  the  past,  which 
is  ever  receding  farther  and  farther  from  the  recognition  of 
experience ;  but,  forasmuch  as  the  power  of  awakening  a 
sympathetic  response  in  the  individual  heart  is  unques- 
tionably the  endowment  of  this  religion  in  a  way  that  no 
other  can  boast,  we  may  point  to  this  characteristic  of  it 
as  at  once  a  sufficient  and  abiding  indication  of  its  true 
origin,  and  as  being  also  the  special  feature  to  which  St. 
John  appealed,  in  saying,  This  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son.2 

It  was  no  development  of  man's  natural  instincts  of 
religion  which  produced  such  a  manifestation  of  it  as  that 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  but  the  Christian  life  of  the 
first  disciples  was  itself  a  supernatural  production,  point- 
ing to  the  existence  of  one  who  had  been  proved  to  be  the 
Christ,  not  because  He  had  died  upon  the  cross  and  been 
buried,  but  because  He  had  risen  from  the  dead  and  as- 
cended into  heaven,  and  had  shed  forth  gifts  of  spiritual 
grace  upon  the  whole  body  of  believers,  showing  Himself 
thus  the  fulfilment  of  psalm  and  prophecy  more  than  if 
He  had  restored  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel,  and  had 
gathered  in  subjection  to  the  throne  of  David  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the  glory  of  them. 

2  i  John  v.  11. 


LECTURE    VII. 

THE   CHRIST  OF  THE  PAULINE   EPISTLES. 


Ho\\u>j>  5'  &vQp&Truv  l'5ei>  oVrea,   /cat  voov 

Horn.  Od. 

pues  creo 

De  la  dementia  divina, 
Que  no  hay  luces  en  el  cielo, 
Que  no  hay  en  el  mar  arenas, 
No  hay  atomos  en  el  viento, 
Que,  sumados  todos  juntos, 
No  sean  nfimero  pequeno 
De  ]os  pecados  que  sabe 
Dios  perdonar. 

Calderon. 


LECTURE  VII. 

Set  your  affection  on  things  above,  not   on  things   on   the  earth. 
For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God. 

COL.  iii.  2,  3. 


next  stage  in  the  development  of  that  conception 
-*-  of  the  Christ  which  is  derived,  or  to  be  derived,  from 
the  New  Testament,  is  supplied  by  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  gave  us  the  picture  of  a 
work  in  progress;  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  give  us  the 
picture  of  a  work  done.  No  one  would  hesitate  to  place 
the  Acts,  as  it  stands  in  the  New  Testament,  before  any 
of  the  Epistles,  whatever  the  actual  relative  dates  of  com- 
position may  be,  because  for  the  most  part  it  has  reference 
to  a  period  of  time  which  must  have  preceded  those  events 
which  made  it  necessary  for  the  Epistles  to  be  written.  It 
professes  to  supply  us  with  an  earlier  link  in  the  chain  of 
circumstances  reaching  from  the  human  life  of  Jesus  to 
the  latest  utterances  of  the  Christian  mind  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  Christian  life  depicted  is  Christian  life 
at  an  earlier  stage.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  doubt  the  general 
accuracy  of  the  portrait  sketched. 

When,  however,  we  come  to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  we  at 
once  enter  upon  ground  even  more  certain  and  clearly 
undeniable  still.  Here  we  are  able,  in  the  case  at  least  of 
the  most  important  letters,  to  fix  the  actual  date  within  a 
year  or  two.  And,  in  fact,  we  may  safely  say  that  the 
bulk  of  the  Pauline  writings  was  in  existence  within  thirty 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  that  in  all  probability 


206  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

the  four  great  and  undisputed  Epistles  were  written  within 
five-and-twenty  years  of  that  time. 

Here,  then,  at  all  events,  we  have  firm  and  solid  ground 
to  tread  upon.  The  letters  to  Eome,  Corinth,  and  Galatia, 
are  undoubted ;  they  were  written  by  St.  Paul,  and  they 
were  sent  to  the  Christians  at  those  places,  and  sent  within 
the  time  specified.  No  reasonable  doubt  as  to  authorship 
attaches  to  any  of  the  other  letters  to  which  the  apostle's 
name  is  affixed,  but  here  at  least  we  are  secure.  We  have 
in  the  greatest  of  St.  Paul's  writings  undoubted  genuine 
productions  of  the  early  Christian  mind,  and  probably  the 
very  earliest  productions.  These  productions,  moreover, 
are  in  the  form  of  letters,  and  their  testimony  is  therefore 
the  more  valuable  from  this  fact.  A  narrative  or  history 
is  always  more  or  less  open  to  the  suspicion  of  being  written 
with  a  bias,  but  a  genuine  letter  presupposes  a  second 
witness  to  the  writer  in  the  person  to  whom  it  is  written. 
Putting  aside  the  imaginary  case,  inapplicable  to  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  of  a  letter  being  written  to  a  second  person  for 
the  purpose  of  conveying  a  false  impression  to  a  third,  it 
is  not  possible  to  reject  the  evidence  supplied  incidentally 
in  the  letters  written  by  St.  Paul  to  his  various  corre- 
spondents. 

For  example,  they  one  and  all  assume  and  establish 
beyond  dispute  the  existence  of  a  Christian  society  in  the 
places  to  which  they  were  sent.  They  tell  us  something 
about  the  constitution  of  this  society,  something  about  its 
character  and  life,  and  a  great  deal  about  the  nature  of  its 
belief.  We  are  able,  at  all  events,  to  gather  from  St. 
Paul's  Epistles  a  very  fair  notion  of  the  kind  of  teaching 
which  the  several  persons  addressed  had  received  from 
him.  What  is  written  is  no  doubt  in  agreement  with 
what  had  been  taught.  Within  five-and-twenty  years, 
therefore,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  there  was  a  consider- 
able society,  in  centres  so  far  separated  as  Eome  and 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  2O/ 

Galatia,  of  persons  who  believed  in  Jesus.  All  these  per- 
sons had  been  baptised :  they  were  baptised  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  or  at  least  in  baptism  they  were  considered  to 
have  put  on  Christ.1  All  these  persons  were  unquestion- 
ably in  the  habit  of  breaking  bread  in  commemoration  of 
the  death  of  Jesus.  If  there  is  no  allusion  to  this  latter 
practice  in  the  letters  to  Kome  and  Galatia,  there  is  abun- 
dant reference  to  it  in  the  first  of  those  to  the  Corinthians,2 
who  occupied  geographically  a  middle  position  between 
the  Eomans  and  Galatians,  and  are  therefore  an  additional 
instance  of  the  extension  of  the  new  society. 

It  is  evident,  moreover,  from  these  Epistles,  that  the 
societies  in  question  were  bound  together  by  faith  in  one 
and  the  same  person,  who  is  called  Jesus  Christ ;  and  it 
is  certain  that  this  was  the  same  Jesus  of  whom  we  read 
in  the  Acts,  and  whose  life  is  recorded  in  the  Gospels. 
From  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  we  have  all  the  principal 
facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  these  correspond  with  what 
we  know  of  it  from  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts. 

Eor  example,  we  have  His  descent  from  the  family  of 
Abraham  and  from  the  family  of  David;3  we  have  His 
supernatural  birth  implied;4  we  have  His  sufferings,5  His 
betrayal,6  His  rejection  by  Pilate  and  Herod,7  His  death 
upon  the  cross,8  His  burial,9  His  resurrection  from  the 
dead  the  third  day,10  five  of  His  manifestations  after  His 
resurrection,11  His  ascension  into  glory,12  His  session  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,13  His  return  to  judgment.14 

It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  doubt  that  the  person  to 
whom  St.  Paul  refers  as  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  Jesus 
of  whom  we  read  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  All  the 

1  Gal.  iii  27;  Rom.  vi.  3.  2  1  Cor.  xi.  20-34.  s  Gal.  iii.  16;  Rom.  i.  3. 

4  Gal.  iv.  4 ;  Rom.  i.  3.  5  2  Cor.  i.  5.  6  1  Cor.  xi.  23. 

7  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  8  Gal.  vi.  14.  9  1  Cor.  xv.  4. 

10  Rom.  vi.  4;  1  Cor.  xv.  4.  »  1  Cor.  xv.  5-7.  1S  Rom.  viii.  17,  29. 

13  Rom.  viii.  34.  14  1  Cor.  i.  7,  8. 


208  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

main  features  of  His  history  correspond  with  them  as 
there  given.  It  is  clear,  moreover,  that  the  writer  im- 
plicitly believed  these  facts  in  His  history,  and  that  the 
persons  to  whom  he  wrote  believed  them  too.  It  is  certain, 
moreover,  that  both  he  and  they  identified  Jesus  with  the 
Christ,  and  did  so  on  account  of  the  remarkable  character 
of  His  history.  So  manifestly  is  this  the  case,  that  the 
two  names  Jesus  and  Christ  frequently  appear  conjoined 
in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  as  the  single  appellation  of  one 
and  the  same  person.  It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  both 
with  him  and  those  to  whom  he  writes  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  gave  us  some  account 
of  the  process  by  which  men  were  brought  to  this  con- 
clusion. In  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  the  conclusion  is  a 
thing  of  the  past. 

And  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  it  was  so  certainly 
with  many  people  at  Ptome,  Corinth,  and  Galatia,  five-and- 
twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ.  It  is  manifest 
also,  from  the  mere  mention  of  these  places,  that  it  must 
have  been  so  not  only  with  the  Jews,  but  even  to  a  larger 
extent  with  the  Gentiles  also.  Though  there  may  have 
been  Jews  among  the  converts  in  all  these  places,  the 
larger  portion  must  have  been  composed  of  Gentiles.  The 
names  of  the  persons  saluted  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans 
are  all  of  them  Greek  or  Eoman,  only  one  is  Jewish.1  It 
is  impossible  to  compute  the  aggregate  numbers  of  these 
several  churches,  but  they  must  have  been  many  thou- 
sands. Among  all  these  people  the  conviction  was  firmly 
established  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Frequently  He  is 
spoken  of  by  no  other  name  than  Christ  or  the  Christ. 

But  everywhere  there  are  traces  of  this  persuasion 
having  been  wrought  by  means  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 
A  foundation  of  Scriptural  teaching  is  implied  wherever 
the  term  Christ  is  used,  and  the  references  to  Scripture 

1  Rom.  xvi.  6.     Greet  Mary,  who  bestowed  much  labour  on  us. 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  209 

statements  are  frequent.  The  persons  addressed  must 
have  been  very  familiar  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. They  must  have  accepted  it  as  an  elemental  prin- 
ciple that  the  Scriptures  spoke  of  a  Christ  to  come.  Other- 
wise, their  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  their  belief 
in  Him,  would  have  meant  nothing.  They  would  have 
been  strangers  to  the  import  of  the  new  name  they  bore, 
and  had  so  gladly  adopted.  The  Eomans  are  told  that  the 
Gospel  had  been  promised  before  ly  the  prophets  in  the  Holt/ 
Scriptures,2  that  Jesus  Christ  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh*  Abraham  and  David  are  quoted  as 
instances  of  persons  who  were  accounted  righteous  with- 
out the  law,  and  knew  the  blessedness  of  being  so.4  Every- 
where the  writer  speaks  as  to  them  that  know  the  law.'6 
The  Corinthians  are  reminded  that  whatsoever  things 
happened  unto  Israel,  happened  unto  them  for  ensamples : 
and  they  are  written,  he  says,  for  our  admonition,  upon 
whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come.6  They  are  taught 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  tlie  Scriptures, 
that  He  was  buried,  and  rose  again  the  third  day  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures.1  The  Galatians  are  instructed  from 
the  allegories  of  the  Law8  the  greater  excellence  of  the 
way  of  faith  which  they  had  forsaken.  All  this  is  evi- 
dence of  a  marvellous  revolution  of  thought,  but  it  is  a 
revolution  which  is  presupposed  in  their  condition  as 
Christians. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  then,  are  evidence  (1)  that  iu 
all  the  churches  to  which  they  were  addressed  the  same 
conclusion  had  been  arrived  at  of  which  we  found  traces 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  the  Gospels — namely 
that  a  Jesus  who  had  been  crucified  was  the  Christ ;  and 
(2)  that  it  had  been  arrived  at  principally,  or  in  part 
through  the  influence  of  the  Scriptures. 

2  Rom.  i.  2.  3  i.  3.  4  Gal.  iii.  6 ;  Rom.  iv.  6. 

5  Rom.  vii.  1.         6  1  Cor.  x.  11.        7  xv.  3,  4.        *  Gal.  iv.  24. 
P 


2io  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

It  is  surely  remarkable  that  in  persons  whose  intellec- 
tual and  moral  peculiarities  must  have  been  so  different 
as  those  of  the  Komans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians,  not 
only  the  same  result  should  have  been  obtained,  but  that 
it  should  have  been  obtained  by  the  same  logical  process 
— namely,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  spoke 
of  a  Christ,  and  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  of  whom  they 
spoke.  It  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  idiosyncrasy  of  par- 
ticular cases,  for  it  was  the  universal  and  unvarying  cha- 
racteristic of  the  faith  in  Jesus,  wherever  it  was  spread 
abroad.  The  moral  lever  by  which  the  early  heathen 
world  was  converted  to  what  we  call  Christianity,  was  the 
complete  fulfilment  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  the  prophetic 
ideal  of  the  Christ.  And  of  the  extent  to  which  this  con- 
version had  spread  within  thirty  years  after  the  death 
of  Christ,  the  Epistles  to  Thessalonica,  Eome,  Corinth, 
Galatia,  Philippi,  Colossse,  Ephesus,  are  sufficient  and 
conclusive  evidence.  They  are  the  historic  proof  of  the 
development  and  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  or  religion  of 
the  Christ  at  that  time,  and  to  that  extent,  and  to  that 
degree. 

Furthermore,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  as  we  have  them, 
are  evidence  to  a  large  extent,  as  has  long  ago  been 
shown,9  of  the  generally  trustworthy  and  authentic  cha- 
racter of  the  history  of  the  Acts ; *  and  they  would  be  evi- 
dence, even  if  that  book  did  not  exist,  of  a  period  and 
condition  somewhat  similar  to  those  therein  described 
having  preceded  the  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  in  the 
various  centres  to  which  they  were  addressed.  The  con- 
dition of  implanted  and  established  faith  to  which  they 

9  By  Paley  in  the  Horace  Paulina}. 

1  So  Professor  Jowett  says,  speaking  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thes- 
salonians :  "  The  statements  of  the  Epistle  are  a  real  confirmation  of  the 
narrative  of  the  Acts ;  and  the  degree  of  coincidence  in  the  narrative  of 
the  Acts  is  a  sufficient  evidence  that  the  Epistle  must  have  been  written 
on  the  second  Apostolical  journey."—  Epistles  of  St.  Paid,  vol  i.  p.  36. 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  21 1 

witness  could  only  have  been  brought  about,  as  indeed 
they  themselves  show  it  was,  by  a  long-continued  course 
of  itinerant  and  missionary  effort,  such  as  that  which  the 
Acts  ascribe  to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  the  other  early 
preachers  of  the  faith.  Even  if  the  Acts  could  be  shown, 
which  they  cannot,  to  be  unhistoric,2  the  Epistles  which 
are  undeniably  genuine  would  show  that  the  state  of 
things  to  which  they  witness  must  have  been  preceded  by 
an  historic  period  not  altogether  dissimilar  from  that 
which  the  Acts  had  fictitiously  described.  Indeed,  the 
Epistles  themselves  are  abundant  evidence  to  the  "  Acts  " 
manner  of  life,  and  habitual  conduct  of  one  at  least  of  the 
apostles,  namely  Paul  himself.  He  has  left  on  permanent 
record,  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,3  the  kind 
of  life  which  he  and  his  fellow-disciples  had  voluntarily 
undertaken,  in  the  long  catalogue  of  sufferings  by  which 
he  proved  himself  the  minister  of  Christ.  He  must  have 
been  a  madman,  or  a  fool,  to  have  acted  in  such  a  way  for 
no  conceivable  end,  unless  the  end  for  which  he  acted  was 
so  plainly  set  before  him,  that  as  a  wise  man  he  could  not 
refuse  to  suffer  gladly  the  loss  of  all  things  for  it.  And  to 
the  end  of  time  his  life  and  character,  as  portrayed  in  his 
own  writings,  will  be  an  unsolved  and  insoluble  enigma 

2  "  Whatever  may  be  the  reason,  the  amount  of  discrepancy  between 
the  earlier  chapters  of  the  Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  contrasts 
with  the  precise  agreement  of  the  later  chapters  with  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  Corinthians,  as  well  as  with  the  internal  consistency  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  itself.  In  inquiries  of  this  sort  it  is  often  supposed 
that,  if  the  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  a  single  book  of  Scripture  be 
weakened,  or  the  credit  of  a  single  chapter  shaken,  the  whole  is  over- 
thrown. Sometimes  the  danger  of  losing  the  whole  is  made  an  argument 
against  criticism  of  any  part.  Much  more  true  it  is  that,  in  short  portions 
or  single  verses  of  Scripture  the  whole  is  contained.  Had  we  but  one 
discourse  of  Christ,  one  Epistle  of  Paul,  more  than  half  would  have  been 
preserved."— Jowett,  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  p.  400.  It  is  precisely 
in  this  belief  that  the  object  of  the  present  lectures  has  been  to  show  how 
much  virtually  remains  as  a  solid  basis  for  faith  after  the  largest  critical 
concessions  have  been  made.  3  Chaps,  vi.  and  xi. 


212  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

to  all  who  are  ignorant  of  or  who  reject  the  key  to  it, 
which  participation  in  the  faith  and  hope  and  love  of  the 
writer,  and  that  alone,  supplies. 

But  again,  as  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  a  witness  to 
the  marvellous  progress  of  faith  in  Jesus,  within  thirty 
years  after  the  crucifixion,  so  they  are  clear  evidence  like- 
wise to  the  general  character  of  that  faith  as  it  was  em- 
braced by  the  writer  himself.  They  contain  the  record  of 
his  mind  probably  for  the  last  ten  or  a  dozen  years  of  his 
life.  It  is  impossible  that  in  that  period  he  should  not 
have  been  subject  to  the  modification  and  growth  of  wider 
experience  and  of  longer  life.4  But  the  substantial  frame- 
work of  his  belief  is  as  manifest  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  as  it  is  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy. 
It  is  still  the  same  Jesus  who  was  killed5  by  the  Jews 
about  twenty  years  before,  who  is  acknowledged  as  both 
Lord  and  Christ;  it  is  He  who  is  to  return  to  judgment, 
who  therefore  hath  ascended  up  on  high.6  There  can  be 
no  question  whatever  as  to  the  reality  of  the  person  spoken 
of,  or  as  to  His  identity.  It  was  no  dream,  it  could  have 
been  no  impersonation  of  a  vague  idea,  no  concrete  em- 
bodiment of  a  mere  notion  or  set  of  notions.  The  Thessa- 
lonians had  been  taught  to  wait  for  the  Son  of  the  living 
and  true  God  from  heaven,  whom  he  raised  from  the  dead, 
even  Jesus?  Here  was  the  entire  foundation  assumed  of 
facts  which  must  have  taken  place  but  little  more  than 

*  "  There  is  a  growth  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  it  is  true ;  but  it  is 
the  growth  of  Christian  life,  not  of  intellectual  progress — the  growth  not 
of  reflection,  but  of  spiritual  experience,  enlarging  as  the  world  widens 
before  the  Apostle's  eyes,  passing  from  life  to  death,  or  from  strife  to  peace, 
with  the  changes  in  the  Apostle's  own  life,  or  the  circumstances  of  his 
converts.  There  is  a  rest  also  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  discernible  not 
in  forms  of  thought  or  types  of  doctrine,  but  in  the  person  of  Christ 
Himself,  who  is  his  centre  in  every  Epistle,  however  various  may  be  his 
modes  of  expression,  or  his  treatment  of  controversial  questions." — 
Jowett,  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 

5  1  Thess.  ii.  15,. 19.  6  i.  10.  7  i.  9, 10. 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  213 

twenty  years  before  they  had  been  proclaimed  to  the 
Thessalonians  :8  the  natural  human  life,  the  death,  the 
resurrection,  the  ascension  of  a  person  who  is  called  Jesus, 
and  is  acknowledged  as  the  Christ,  and  to  such  an  extent, 
and  for  so  long,  that  the  two  names  have  become  incor- 
porated into  one,  Jesus  Christ,  expressing  at  once  both  the 
office  and  the  person  filling  the  office.  When  we  remember 
that  this  same  Epistle  makes  mention  of  the.  churches  of 
God  which  in  Judcea  were  in  Christ  Jesus?  and  implies 
both  that  they  had  undergone  persecution  and  that  the 
Thessalonians  were  partakers  with  them  of  a  common  faith, 
and  of  a  similar  persecution  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  we  see 
at  once  that  a  considerable  portion  of  this  twenty  years  is 
virtually  bridged  over  by  the  period  of  time  requisite  for 
the  transmission  of  the  faith  from  Palestine  to  Macedonia, 
from  Asia  to  Europe,  and  for  that  personal  change  in  the 
writer  himself,  which  we  know  from  other  sources  had 
taken  place,  and  to  which  he  alludes  here  when  he  says, 
he  was  allowed  of  God  to  be  put  in  trust  with  the  Gospel.1 

It  becomes  then  morally  and  absolutely  impossible,  that 
in  the  brief  space  of  a  dozen  or  fifteen  years,  which  is  the 
utmost  that  remains  unaccounted  for  after  the  known 
historic  death  of  the  person  called  Christ,  and  the  rise  of 
the  churches  here  mentioned  in  Judcea,  there  should  have 

8  If  we  place  the  date  of  the  crucifixion  March  27,  A.D.  31,  and  the 
founding  of  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  A.D.  52,  the  actual  interval  would 
have  been  about  one-and-twenty  years,  but  it  can  hardly  have  been  more. 
Some  with  less  probability  place  the  date  of  the  crucifixion,  April  7,  A.D. 
30.  Even  if  the  preaching  of  Paul  at  Thessalonica  is  brought  down  to 
A.D.  53,  the  greatest  possible  interval  is  three-and-twenty  years,  which  is 
virtually  lessened  by  the  considerations  mentioned  in  the  text.  We  have 
a  genuine  letter  of  A.D.  53,  containing  incidental  reference  to  sundry 
events,  which,  on  the  evidence  of  the  same  letter,  had  been  "well  known 
for  several  years  before  in  the  country  where  they  occurred,  and  which, 
from  the  collateral  and  independent  evidence  of  another  letter  (the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians),  written  not  later  than  A.D.  58,  must  have  been  familiar 
to  the  writer  for  a  period  of  nearly  twenty  years  when  it  was  written. 
9  1  Thess.  ii.  14.  1  ii.  4. 


214  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

gathered  any  haze  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  actual  character 
of  the  events  alluded  to  as  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 
We  have  what  amounts  practically  to  an  unbroken  chain 
of  corroborative  testimony,  extending  from  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  to  the  time,  twenty  years  later,  when,  in  an  im- 
portant maritime  city  of  Macedonia,  He  was  implicitly 
believed  in  as  the  Christ,  and  multitudes  were  prepared 
to  submit  to  persecution  rather  than  surrender  that  belief. 
Is  there  anything  but  the  actual  historic  reality  of  the 
main  events  recorded  in  the  Gospels  to  which  a  revolution 
so  momentous  can  satisfactorily  be  referred  ?  This  is  a 
question  which  irresistibly  suggests  itself  to  us,  and  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  reasonable  answer  to  it  but  one. 

It  is  important,  however,  to  observe,  that  whatever  we 
may  regard  as  the  ultimate  drift  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians,  it  is  impossible  to  be  unconscious  of  the 
basis  of  historic  fact  underlying  it  which  we  everywhere 
encounter.  No  less  than  four  times  is  the  death2  of  Jesus 
spoken  of;  twice  His  resurrection  from  the  dead8  is  dis- 
tinctly declared  as  an  article  of  the  common  faith ;  five 
times  allusion  is  made  to  His  future  return.4  It  is  true  that, 
for  the  most  part,  this  reference  is  incidental,  but  it  is  all 
the  more  worthy  of  our  attention  from  that  circumstance. 
The  substratum  of  solid  fact  is  broad  and  deep,  or  else  we 
should  not  so  often  come  upon  it. 

We  see,  moreover,  that  the  teaching  which  had  been 
imparted  to  the  Thessalonians  is  spoken  of  as  the  Gospel. 
It  is  our  Gospel ;  the  Gospel  of  God ;  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 
It  is  called  the  word  of  God.  It  is  said  to  have  come  to 
them  in  power  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  to  have  been  re- 
ceived with  joy,  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  the  word  of 
God,  which  wrought  effectually  in  them  that  believed.  It 

2  1  Thess.  i.  10;  ii.  15;  iv.  14;  v.  10.  3  i.  10;  iv.  14. 

4  1  Thess.  i.  10;  ii.  19;  iii.  13;  iv.  16;  v.  23. 


vii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  215 

was  recognised  apparently  as  the  Gospel  of  salvation  "by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  a  Gospel  which  required 
holiness  of  life,  and  the  Thessalonians  had  been  charged 
to  walk  worthy  of  God,  who  had  called  them  unto  his  king- 
dom and  glory.  All  this  reminds  us  vividly  of  that  gospel 
of  the  kingdom  which  had  been  the  one  theme  of  Christ's 
preaching.  The  alternate  and  concurrent  affliction  and 
joy  with  which  it  had  been  received  at  Thessalonica  cor- 
responds exactly  with  the  account  of  its  reception  every- 
where, as  recorded  in  the  Acts.  If  in  Asia  Minor  the 
disciples  had  been  reminded  that  we  must  through  much 
tribulation  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,5  we  read  in  the 
letter  to  Thessalonica,  Verily,  when  we  were  with  you,  we 
told  you  before  that  we  should  suffer  tribulation ;  even  as  it 
came  to  pass,  and  ye  know?  If  the  mission  of  Philip  to 
Samaria  had  caused  great  joy  in  that  city,7  the  Thessalonians 
are  not  only  exhorted  to  rejoice  evermore,9  but  their  first 
entrance  into  the  Gospel  was  with  joy  of  the  Holy  Ghost.9 
On  the  other  hand,  the  message  of  the  Gospel  had  found 
them  in  a  state  of  idolatry ;  it  was  from  idols  that  they 
had  turned  to  serve  the  living  and  true  God,  and  to  wait  for 
his  Son  from  heaven.1  It  is  impossible  not  to  accept  all 
this  as  a  literal  and  accurate  statement  of  the  condition  of 
the  church  at  Thessalonica.  But  it  implies  as  certainly, 
in  the  disciples  there,  a  knowledge  of  all  the  main  facts 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  ;  a  belief  in  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures as  documents  which  had  been  fulfilled  in  Him,  for 
otherwise  He  would  not  have  been  received  as  Christ ;  a 
recognition  of  Him  as  the  Son  of  God,  who  within,  per- 
haps, the  last  twenty  years,  had  lived  and  died  on  earth, 
and  had  ascended  into  heaven ;  a  conviction  that,  in  some 
way  or  other,  they  were  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
consequence  of  their  faith  in  Jesus,  which  reminds  us  of 

5  Acts  xiv.  22.  «  1  Thess.  iii.  4.  ?  Acts  viii.  8. 

B  1  Thess.  v.  16.  9  i.  6.  *  i.  9,  10. 


2i6  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

various  accounts  in  the  Acts  describing  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  of  the  promise  ascribed  to  John 
the  Baptist, — he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost? 

A  revolution  of  thought  more  remarkable  than  that 
which  is  thus  implied  it  is  impossible  to  conceive ;  but  of 
the  fact  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  are  the  abiding 
monument,  and,  being  in  all  probability  the  very  earliest 
Christian  writings  extant,  they  are  invaluable  as  an  index 
of  Christian  faith  at  that  time,  of  the  progress  it  had  made, 
and  of  the  means  by  which  it  had  been  diffused.  The  faith 
of  the  Thessalonian  church  was  substantially  the  faith  of 
the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  The  Jesus  of  the  one  was  the 
Jesus  of  the  others,  and  undistinguishable  from  the  person 
who  is  known  to  us  in  history  as  having  suffered  death  in. 
the  reign  of  Tiberius  Csesar.3  Within  about  twenty  years 
after  t^at  event  the  story  of  His  death  had  penetrated,  at 
all  events,  as  far  as  Macedonia,  and  had  produced  the 
peculiar  results  of  which  the  apostle's  writings  are  proof, 
in  a  body  of  men  who  had  renounced  idolatry,  and  given 
evidence  of  a  moral  reformation,  and  become  so  attached, 
not  to  the  memory,  but  to  the  person  of  Jesus,  that  they 
were  willing  to  endure  persecution  for  His  name's  sake. 
The  comparatively  brief  space  of  time  which  had  elapsed 
between  the  known  occurrence  of  the  life  and  death  of 
Jesus,  and  the  prevalence  of  belief  in  Him  as  the  Christ 
and  the  Son  of  God,  which  must  have  obtained  for  several 
years  before  Paul  preached  at  Thessalonica,  precludes  the 
possibility  of  the  events  proclaimed  being  cunningly  devised 

2  St.  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  St.  Luke  iii.  16. 

3  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  44.    The  words  cannot  be  too  often  quoted: — "Ergo 
abolendo  rumori  Nero  subdidit  reos,  quaesitissimis  pcenis  adfecit,  quos, 
per  flagitia  invisos,  vulgus  Christianos  adpellabat.     Auctor  nominis  ejus 
Christus,  Tiberio  imperitante,  per  Procuratorem  Pontium  Pilatum  sup- 
plicio  adfectus  erat ;  repressaque  in  prsesens  exitiabilis  superstitio  rursus 
erumpebat,  non  modo  per  Judaeam,  originem  ejus  mali,  sed  per  urbem 
etiam,  quo  cuncta  undique  atrocia  aut  pudenda  confluunt  celebranturque." 


vii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  217 

fables,  as  far  at  least  as  the  circumstances  of  His  life  and 
death  are  concerned ;  and  that  life  and  death  alone  would 
have  been  insufficient  to  suggest  the  notion  that  He  was 
the  Christ,  or  to  produce  the  results  which  we  know  to 
have  been  produced.  Here  again  then,  as  before,  everything 
turns  upon  the  testimony  which  was  borne  to  Jesus  as  the 
Christ.  The  desire  to  represent  Him  as  the  Christ  would 
have  occurred  to  no  one,  had  not  the  events  which  followed 
His  death  suggested  it;  and  certainly  the  results  which 
everywhere  followed  the  proclamation  of  Him  as  the  Christ 
are  more  intelligible,  on  the  supposition  that  those  events 
were  realities,  than  they  are  upon  the  alternative  suppo- 
sition that  they  were  not. 

And  this  becomes  even  more  evident  when  we  take  into 
account  the  means  by  which  the  results  were  brought  about. 
The  Epistles  to  Thessalonica  bear  the  names  of  three  men 
of  whom  we  know  scarcely  anything  but  what  is  told  us  in 
the  Acts.  It  is  plain  that  they  were  the  authors  of  the 
revolution.  These  itinerant  preachers  had  carried  the  pro- 
clamation that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  through  Palestine  and 
Asia  Minor  into  Macedonia,  so  as  to  work  conviction  and 
moral  reformation  in  men  who  had  before  been  idolaters. 
This  had  not  been  done  with  flattering  words  nor  for  the 
hope  of  gain ;  their  exhortation  had  not  been  of  deceit,  nor 
of  uncleanness,  nor  in  guile,  but  as  before  God  which  trieth 
the  hearts,  so  that  they  could  say,  Ye  are  witnesses,  and 
God  also,  how  holily  and  justly  and  uriblamedbly  we  behaved 
ourselves  among  you  that  believe* 

Eesults  so  remarkable,  which  become  more  remarkable 
when  we  consider  the  agency  which  produced  them,  cannot 
be  separated  from  the  fundamental  assertion  by  which  they 
were  preceded  and  accompanied,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
This  assertion,  like  a  thread  of  different  colour,  runs 
through  the  tissue  and  texture,  not  only  of  this  but  of 
4  1  Thess.  ii.  10, 


2i8  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

every  Epistle.  It  is  the  foundation  corner-stone  which 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole  edifice  of  Pauline  teaching. 
It  is  the  stout  knotted  gnarled  root  which  bears  up  the 
trunk  and  branches  of  the  tree.  All  the  ethical  precepts, 
and  the  wise  moral  exhortation  so  abundant  everywhere 
and  so  conspicuously  excellent  are  but  the  flowers  and 
fruit  of  this  fair  and  wide-spreading  tree.  It  was  because 
believers  were  engrafted  into  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  de- 
clared to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  according  to  the 
Spirit  of  holiness  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  that 
they  were  not  only  required  and  exhorted  to  be  holy  as  He 
was  holy,  but  had  likewise  themselves  received  an  impulse 
to  holiness  to  which  they  had  before  been  strangers.  It 
was  because  the  disciples  at  Colossse  had  been  taught  and 
believed  that  they  were  dead  and  risen  with  Christ  that 
the  appeal  could  reach  them,  to  set  their  affections  on  things 
above,  and  not  on  things  on  the  earth.  We  may  fairly  claim 
the  high,  novel,  and  unexampled  moral  tone  everywhere 
pervading  these  early  Christian  writings  as  the  most  satis- 
factory and  conclusive  evidence  of  the  reality  of  that 
operation  and  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  which  they 
speak  so  much.  If  ever  the  tree  is  known  by  his  fruits 
whether  it  is  good  or  bad,  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in 
pronouncing  on  the  character  of  these  fruits.  And  if  they 
were  the  undeniable  and  unique  production  of  a  tree  which 
specially  claimed  to  be  of  the  Divine  planting,  then  cer- 
tainly, so  far  as  the  fruits  could  be  evidence  of  it,  the  claim 
was  made  good.  Before  the  tree  could  be  shown  to  be  one 
which  the  Lord  had  not  planted,  it  would  be  requisite, 
not  only  to  call  in  question  the  evidence  upon  which  that 
one  fact  rested  which  declared  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ, 
and  which,  as  far  as  the  senses  are  concerned,  could 
never  be  conclusive ;  but  likewise  to  disprove,  which  was 
not  possible,  the  abiding  testimony  of  those  living  fruits 
which  ever  accompanied  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the 


vii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  219 

Christ,  and  of  which  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  the  true 
measure,  as  they  are  the  unalterable  expression. 

These  early  writings,  then,  may  be  taken  as  original 
and  genuine  exponents  of  the  doctrine  or  religion  of  the 
Christ  as  it  was  declared  and  accepted  within  a  quarter  of 
a  century  after  Jesus  had  been  crucified.  The  writings 
themselves  contain  internal  and  incidental  evidence  that 
substantially  the  same  belief  had  been  in  vogue  for  a 
period  of  at  least  twelve  or  fifteen  years  previously.  (The 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  alone  shows  this.)  Consequently 
we  are  carried  back  by  undeniable  and  documentary 
evidence  to  a  time  distant  by  about  ten  years  only  from 
the  principal  events  upon  which  the  belief  as  it  was 
received  was  based. 

For  we  cannot  separate  the  earliest  expressions  of  that 
belief  from  the  historic  event  of  the  death  of  Jesus.  The 
same  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  speaks  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  in  terms  which  leave  no 
doubt  upon  the  mind  that  the  events  referred  to  were  the 
actual  crucifixion  of  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  which  was 
declared  to  have  succeeded  it.  What  the  Apostle's  faith 
was  at  the  time  of  writing  this  letter,  that  it  had  been 
certainly  for  fourteen,  possibly  for  seventeen,  years  before, 
and  possibly  even  for  a  yet  longer  period.5  He  bears 

5  It  is  plain  that  St.  Paul  identifies  the  Gospel  which  he  preached  to 
the  Galatians  (i.  11.)  with  that  which  he  had  received  at  his  conversion, 
(i.  12-16.)  There  can  have  been  no  material  change  in  his  own  belief 
during  that  interval,  or  he  would  not  have  spoken  as  he  does  in  the  first 
chapter.  It  would  also  seem  that  all  the  events  alluded  to  in  Galatians  i. 
and  ii.  had  preceded  the  first  preaching  in  Galatia,  and  therefore  the 
period  virtually  covered  by  this  Epistle  must  be  much  greater  than  that 
given  in  the  text.  At  all  events,  it  carries  us  back  to  the  time  of  St.  Paul's 
conversion.  Professor  Jowett  places  "an  interval  of  four  or  five  years" 
between  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  and  that  to  the  Galatians. — 
Epistles,  i.  281.  I  cannot  accept  the  inference  drawn  by  him  that  in 
Galatians  v.  11  and  2  Cor.  v.  16  (vol.  i.  p.  8  seq.}  we  have  indications  of 
what  would  have  been  a  natural  change  of  belief  in  St.  Paul  himself 


22O  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

implicit  and  emphatic  witness  that  it  had  and  could  have 
undergone  no  material  change.  So  that  when  he  first 
became  possessed  by  the  conviction  that  the  crucified  and 
risen  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  there  had  elapsed  but  an 
interval  of  time  since  His  death  which  was  fairly  and 
accurately  within  the  grasp  of  memory.  What  is  a  period 
of  ten  or  even  fifteen  years  for  any  man  in  middle  life  to 
look  back  upon  ?  Not  seldom  casual  words,  fragments  of 
conversations,  and  the  most  commonplace  incidents  which 
happened  at  that  distance  of  time,  retain  their  hold  upon 
the  memory  with  unrelaxed  tenacity,  and  remain  engraven 
on  the  imagination  with  indelible  clearness.  And  how 
much  more  is  it  so  with  public  events  of  prominent  and  of 
stirring  import !  Let  any  one  of  us  seek  to  recall  events, 
personal  or  public,  which  happened  ten  years  ago.  Is  it 
possible  that  we  can  be  deceived  about  them  ?  The  haze 
of  distance  may  indeed  invest  them  at  times  with  indis- 
tinctness, and  give  them  all  the  appearance  of  unreality, 
no  matter  how  vivid  our  recollection  of  them  may  be ; 
and  not  unfrequently  it  may  seem  hard  to  believe  that 
circumstances  actually  occurred  through  which  we  are 
conscious  that  we  ourselves  have  passed.  But  does  the 
converse  ever  happen  ?  Does  any  man  in  his  senses  ever 
believe  that  events  actually  took  place  ten  years  ago  which 
exist  only  in  his  own  imagination?  Is  it  possible  that 
internal  impressions  of  his  own  should  be  able  to  project 
themselves  on  the  outer  world  so  vividly  as  to  beget  the 
belief  that  they  had  a  veritable  existence  in  the  world  of 
fact  ?  And  is  it  possible  for  impressions  so  projected  to 

after  his  conversion.  Much  more  in  accordance  with  the  truth,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  is  the  remark  of  Alford  on  2  Cor  v.  16 — "The  fact  alluded 
to  in  the  concessive  clause,  is,  not  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  while  He  was  on  earth,  but  that  view  of  Him  which  Paul  took 
before  his  conversion,  when  he  knew  Him  only  according  to  His  outward 
apparent  standing  in  this  world,  only  as  Jesus  of  Kazareth."  The  italics 
are  his. 


vii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  221 

have  a  conspicuous  and  remarkable  influence  on  his  whole 
after  life  ?  And  is  it  possible  that  the  writer,  when  the 
Son  of  God  was  revealed  in  him,  when  that  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  which  he  speaks6  had  become  a  spiritual 
fact  to  his  consciousness,  should,  out  of  the  consciousness 
so  influenced,  have  projected  into  the  world  of  fact  a  life, 
death,  and  resurrection,  which  had  no  existence,  which 
were  but  the  offspring  of  his  own  perverted  imagination 
and  distempered  fancy — it  being  all  the  while  a  known 
fact  that  a  life  and  death  under  similar  circumstances  had 
taken  place  in  Jerusalem  about  ten  years7  before,  and  that 
it  was  this  person  so  living  and  dying  whom  he  believed 
to  be  the  Christ  ?  Surely  the  question  is  one  which  forth- 
with answers  itself. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  there  are  many  events  which  have  happened,  whether 
to  ourselves  or  to  the  world  at  large,  which  we  have  not 
adequately  understood  till  long  after  they  have  happened. 
It  is  not  always  easy  to  recognise  the  full  significance  of 
events  at  the  time  when  they  occur.  The  life  and  deatli 
of  Jesus  Christ  were  events  of  which  St.  Paul  can  hardly 
have  been  unconscious  at  the  time  when  they  took  place. 
His  own  determined  opposition  to  the  faith  which  he 
afterwards  preached,  is  proof,  at  all  events,  of  the  identity 
of  the  Jesus  whom  he  preached  with  the  Jesus  whom  he 
had  opposed.  And  even  if  his  faith  could  be  accounted 
for  as  a  thing  devoid  of  historic  foundation,  the  same  could 
not  be  said  for  his  vehement  opposition.  If  it  was  an 
imaginary  or  unreal  Jesus  in  whom  he  believed,  it  must 
have  been  a  real  historic  Jesus  whom  he  persecuted,  and 
the  same  Jesus  whose  life  and  death  we  have  recorded  in 
the  Gospels,  and  mentioned  in  the  Acts. 

«  Gal.  i.  15,  16. 

7  The  real  interval  was  probably  much  less.  Saul's  conversion  is 
placed  by  Alford  in  A.D.  37.  It  may  have  been  earlier. 


222  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

While,  therefore,  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  virtually 
carries  us  back,  as  a  witness  to  the  historic  reality  of  the 
events  implied,  to  a  very  short  period  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  to  events  contemporaneous  with  the  early 
manhood  of  the  writer,  it  is  also  a  permanent  witness  to 
the  changed  aspect  in  which  he  had  learnt  to  regard  these 
events.  A  name  which  had  once  been  hateful  to  him,  and 
to  which  he  had  offered  strenuous  and  bitter  opposition, 
had  now  for  more  than  fourteen  years  been  the  object  of 
devoted  and  affectionate  regard.  He  had  himself  been  the 
principal  agent  in  making  known  that  name.  He  had  been 
taught  the  meaning  of  an  event  which  had  happened  within 
his  own  recollection,  and  which  was  unquestionable ;  and 
he  could  now  say,  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless 
I  live  ;  yet  not  /,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me :  and  the  life  which 
I  now  live  in  the  flesh  1  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God, 
who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me.8 

And  the  whole  point  of  the  change  which  had  passed 
upon  him  was  involved  in  that  word  Christ.  About  the 
death  of  Jesus  there  was  and  could  be  no  question;  the 
only  question  was,  Who  was  He  that  had  died  ?  It  was 
not  about  the  reality  of  certain  facts,  without  which  the 
persecution  of  St.  Paul  was  as  unintelligible  as  his  con- 
version, but  about  the  meaning  and  import  of  those  facts. 
Had  Jesus  died  for  Himself  or  for  others  ?  Was  His  death 
the  one  event  anticipated  in  the  Scriptures  and  fulfilling 
them,  or  was  it  not  ?  If  His  death  was  but  the  natural 
culmination  of  His  life,  did  not  His  life  and  death  together 
show  that  the  story  of  His  resurrection  which  Paul  himself 
had  before  rejected,  might  after  all  be  possibly  not  untrue  ? 
And  if  His  resurrection  was  a  fact,  did  not  that  event, 
together  with  His  life  and  death,  combine  to  throw  a  flood 
of  light  upon  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
nothing  else  could  throw  ? 

8  Gal.  ii.  20. 


viij  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  223 

We  indeed  may  reason  thus  upon  the  facts  before  us, 
but  we  cannot  thus  reproduce  the  line  of  reasoning  in  the 
Apostle's  mind.  To  him  there  was  a  yet  more  cogent 
argument,  to  which  he  is  himself  a  witness.  The  perse- 
cuted and  risen  Jesus  had  revealed  Himself  in  him.  He 
had  given  that  revelation  of  Himself  to  the  inner  world 
of  his  spiritual  consciousness  of  which  he  speaks  in  the 
opening  of  his  letter  to  the  Galatian  church.  To  resist 
that  revelation  would  have  been  to  resist  the  Holy  Ghost : 
to  resist  the  force  of  inevitable  moral  conviction.  He 
could  not  resist  it.  He  was  constrained  to  surrender 
himself  from  henceforth  a  willing  and  obedient  servant 
to  the  Jesus  whom  he  had  persecuted.  And  his  life 
remains  to  this  day  an  indestructible  monument  to  the 
vitality  and  significance  of  those  events,  whose  historic 
reality  it  is  impossible  to  deny. 

We  are  led,  then,  by  these  considerations  to  the  further 
question,  which  can  hardly  fail  to  suggest  itself  to  every- 
one, and  of  which  so  much  has  oftentimes  been  made :  How 
is  it  that  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  so  different  in  their 
character  from  the  Gospels  ?  Is  it  possible  that  the  Christ 
of  the  Gospels  can  be  the  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  ? 
If  we  take  St.  Paul  for  our  guide  in  his  representation  of 
Christianity,  do  we  not  necessarily  reject  that  conception 
of  it  which  has  been  embodied  in  the  Gospels  ? 

In  attempting  to  deal  with  this  question  we  must 
remember  that  St.  Paul's  Epistles  may  be  taken  as  the 
accurate  record  of  the  effect  produced  upon  his  own  mind 
by  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  those  events  inter- 
preted themselves  to  him.  They  are  also,  no  doubt,  an 
accurate  record  of  the  Gospel  which  he  preached  among 
the  several  churches  which  he  founded,  or  with  which  he 
wras  brought  in  contact.  They  are  therefore,  so  far,  an 
accurate  record  of  the  form  which  Christianity  had  as- 
sumed in  those  various  churches  within  thirty  years  after 


224  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

the  death  of  Christ.  Whether  or  not  there  was  any  other 
form  prevalent  elsewhere,  or  what  that  form  was,  we  are 
•unable  to  determine,  except  from  indications  in  the  letters 
themselves,  and  so  far  as  the  Gospels  or  the  Acts  may  be 
supposed  to  show  it.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  moreover, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  whether  the  book  was  written  with 
that  design  or  not,  serves  as  an  intermediate  and  connecting- 
link  between  the  Epistles  and  the  Gospels.  Not  only  does 
the  history  of  it  bridge  over  the  interval  of  time,  but  the 
book  itself  supplies  the  inevitable  transition.  The  Acts 
recorded  the  preaching  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  Epistles 
imply  the  existence  of  various  churches  which  had  so 
accepted  Him,  and  give  us  a  more  detailed  picture  of  the 
effect  and  influence  of  so  accepting  Him.  But  the  tone  of 
thought  expressed  in  the  Acts  is  virtually  far  nearer  to  the 
Epistles  than  it  is  to  the  Gospels;  and  the  history  is  a 
clear  witness  that  Jesus  was  proclaimed  as  the  Christ,  and 
that  there  was  no  faith  in  Him  where  He  was  not  so 
acknowledged.  It  can,  however,  scarcely  be  doubted  that 
the  writer  of  the  Acts  was  also  the  writer  of  the  third 
Gospel,  which  does  not  differ  materially  in  its  exhibition 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  from  the  other  synoptics.  We  may 
presume,  therefore,  that  the  writer  was  not  himself  con- 
scious of  any  material  or  substantial  divergence  between 
the  picture  of  Jesus  he  had  given  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
conception  of  Him  embodied  or  implied  in  the  Acts.  And 
if  he  was,  as  we  may  reasonably  suppose,  the  friend  and 
companion  of  St.  Paul,  we  can  hardly  imagine  that  he  was 
conscious  of  any  real  divergence  between  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  for  example,  and  his  own  evangelical  narra- 
tive. Not  making  these  assumptions  absolutely,  we  may 
at  all  events  infer  that  the  early  traditions  on  which  they 
rest  are  so  far  in  favour  of  the  conclusions  we  have  drawn 
from  them ;  and  may  tend  to  show  that  the  differences  some 
have  supposed  may,  after  all,  be  more  imaginary  than  real. 


vii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  225 

And  certainly,  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  and  the  Epistles, 
have  at  any  rate  this  feature  in  common,  that  they  repre- 
sent Jesus  to  have  been  the  Christ.  They  all  of  them 
agree  that  the  Jesus  whom  they  thus  represent  was  cruci- 
fied, dead,  and  buried;  they  are  unanimous  in  affirming 
that  He  rose  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  that  He  was 
several  times  seen  of  His  disciples  during  a  period  (ac- 
cording to  St.  Luke  or  the  writer  of  the  Acts)  of  forty 
days  after  His  death,  but  was  never  so  seen  afterwards; 
they  one  and  all  declare  or  imply  that  He  ascended  into 
heaven  at  the  end  of  that  time,  and  that  His  personal 
return,  under  whatever  circumstances,  is  an  event  to  be 
ever  anticipated  till  it  comes.  Lastly,  they  all  agree  that 
this  same  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  Messiah  promised 
of  old,  and  the  ultimate  judge  of  the  world.  The  frame- 
work of  fact,  then,  is  unquestionably  the  same  in  all,  and 
so  also  in  these  last  particulars  is  the  framework  of  doc- 
trine. But  the  central,  fundamental,  and  essential  point 
of  the  doctrine,  which  was  based  upon  the  facts  and  pre- 
supposed them,  which  is  everywhere  implied,  and  never 
omitted  or  lost  sight  of,  is  the  declaration  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ. 

We  have,  then,  this  circumstance  to  deal  with,  that 
there  is  no  known  document  of  an  earlier  date  than  the 
earliest  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  which  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  being  the  Christ  is  found.  But  it  is  found  stated 
there  in  all  its  clearness  and  integrity.  The  doctrine  was 
at  that  time  fully  developed,  the  belief  mature ;  and  what- 
ever Christian  literature  came  into  existence  afterwards, 
whether  Gospels,  Acts,  or  Epistles,  did  not  add  materially 
to  its  essential  features.  But  the  doctrine  or  belief  already 
existing  in  this  form  was  necessarily  the  product  of  two 
factors,  an  effect  produced  by  the  combined  operation  of 
two  causes — the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  and  the  life  of 
Jesus.  Neither  of  these  causes  alone  was  sufficient  to 

Q 


226  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

produce  the  result  which  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  know  was 
produced.  The  life  of  Jesus  alone  could  not  have  given 
existence  to  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  or  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  The  study  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment alone  could  not  have  produced  either  of  them.  They 
were  in  no  sense  a  reproduction  of  the  ancient  prophets. 
They  were  new  and  original  creations,  necessarily  presup- 
posing the  human  life  of  Jesus  and  the  Scriptures  of  the 
prophets.  Of  the  historic  reality  of  either  of  these  factors 
at  that  time — namely,  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment or  of  the  human  life  of  Jesus — there  is  not  the 
slightest  doubt. 

But,  further,  it  could  not  by  human  ingenuity  have 
been  foreseen  that  what  we  may  call  the  fusion  of  these 
two  principles,  the  combined  operation  of  these  two 
factors,  would  have  produced  these  results  any  more  than, 
prior  to  experience,  it  could  have  been  foreseen  that  the 
combination  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  would  produce  water. 
The  results,  however,  as  we  know  them  for  a  certainty 
from  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  and  as  we  see  them  in  those 
writings  themselves,  were  produced.  But,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  we  could  not  have  had  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  nor  the  results  which  followed  the  proclamation  of 
that  belief,  without  the  previous  existence  and  combined 
operation  of  the  two  causes  specified.  Is  not  then  the 
known  effect  an  evidence  of  the  inherent  vitality  of  the 
causes  producing  it,  and  a  corroboration  of  the  soundness 
of  the  principle  which  governed  their  union  ?  Experience 
justified  the  application  because  it  proved  the  truth  of  the 
principle. 

Eor  it  cannot  be  too  carefully  noted  that  the  effects  of 
which  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  evidence  were  not  pro- 
duced by  any  mere  abstract  admiration  for  the  character 
of  Jesus,  but  by  belief  in  Him  as  the  Christ ;  and  it  is 
this  which  guides  us  to  a  just  appreciation  of  the  neces- 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  227 

sary  difference  between  the  Epistles  and  the  Gospels.  The 
one  aim  at  giving  us  the  presentation  of  a  life,  the  other 
record  the  influence  of  that  life.  It  is  natural  that  in  an 
early  and  unconscious  age  of  the  Church  the  record  of  the 
influence  of  the  life,  occurring  in  the  form  it  does,  should 
be  older  than  and  different  from  the  portrait  of  the  life, 
and  that  it  should  have  preceded  the  portrait  of  the  life. 
The  influence  registered  itself  spontaneously  in  the  form 
of  letters;  the  life  could  only  be  recalled  in  the  form  of 
history.  It  would  be  the  colossal  framework  of  the  life, 
and  not  its  minute  detail,  to  which  the  influence  would  be 
mainly  due.  And  this  influence,  within  certain  broad  and 
comprehensive  limits,  would  be  the  same  everywhere. 
There  would  be  an  outward  difference  of  expression,  but 
an  internal  identity  of  operation,  wherever  the  same 
vital  principles  were  received,  just  as  the  expression 
of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  may  differ  from 
that  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy;  but  the  motive 
spiritual  influence  implied  and  at  work  in  both  is  the 
same. 

Thus  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  the  record  of  the  effect 
or  influence  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  life  of  Jesus  as 
the  Christ ;  not  as  a  philosopher,  or  a  teacher  of  morality, 
or  a  legislator  of  rules  of  life ;  but  as  the  Christ  or  anointed 
one  of  God,  who  was  in  Himself  the  fountain  and  channel 
of  all  spiritual  life ;  the  giver  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  one 
mediator  between  God  and  man,  who  was  in  Himself  the 
bond  of  union  between  man  and  God,  the  reconciler  of 
the  two  divided  and  antagonistic  natures,  because  the 
revelation  under  a  new  and  unprecedented  aspect  of  the 
character  of  God,  and  therefore  the  last  and  fullest  ex- 
ponent of  the  will  of  God. 

All  this  if  Jesus  was  the  Christ  He  would  be,  for  it  was 
implied  and  signified  in  His  being  the  Christ,  that  is  the 
chosen  and  appointed  human  channel  of  approach  to  God. 


228  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

Consequently,  if  Jesus  were  declared  to  be  the  Christ, 
there  would  be  no  action  of  his  life  which  would  not  be 
fraught  with  the  deepest  possible  meaning  for  man.  He 
would  be  the  representative  of  every  man  before  God  and 
in  his  approach  to  God.  His  life  would  be  man's  perfect 
life,  His  death  would  be  man's  death  as  a  sinner,  His 
resurrection  would  be  man's  resurrection  in  righteousness 
and  His  full  and  free  absolution  and  release  from  sin,  His 
ascension  would  be  man's  spiritual  ascension  to  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  and  His  continual  session  in  the  heavenly 
places. 

That  He  should  be  so  recognised  and  accepted  implied, 
indeed,  and  involved  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but 
to  this  agency  and  influence  continual  reference  is  made 
in  the  Apostle's  writings,  as  we  see  it  at  work  in  the  Acts 
and  find  it  was  promised  in  the  Gospels.  It  was  in  de- 
monstration of  the  spirit  and  of  power  that  his  speech  had 
been  to  the  Corinthians.9  It  was  by  the  hearing  of  faith 
that  the  Galatians  had  received  the  Spirit ; 1  it  was  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  in  much  assurance  or  certainty 
of  conviction  that  the  Gospel  had  come  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians.2  And  therefore  it  was  that  the  life  of  Jesus  was 
recognised  and  accepted  as  the  typical  or  symbolic  life  of 
man  when  He  was  acknowledged  as  the  Christ.  But  in- 
asmuch as  the  Gospels  dealt  with  the  life  of  Christ  not  in 
its  effects  but  in  its  historic  unfolding,  as  it  was  in  itself 
and  not  as  it  was  destined  to  influence  others,  it  was  not 
possible  that  they  should  present  the  same  phenomena, 
however  much  the  germ  of  that  influence  may  have  been 
embodied  in  the  words  of  Jesus  as  it  was  of  necessity 
contained  in  His  acts. 

Moreover,  the  Gospels  themselves  give  us  to  understand 
that  mightier  results  than  any  as  yet  witnessed  were  at 
hand ;  if  not,  why  should  the  command  to  go  into  all  the 

9  1  Cor.  ii.  4.  x  Gal.  iii.  2.  2  1  Thess.  i.  5. 


viz.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  229 

world  have  been  given  to  men  who  as  yet  had  never  passed 
the  confines  of  Palestine  ?3 

While,  therefore,  the  manifest  difference  between  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  is  itself  a  proof  that  these  Epistles 
could  not  have  been  originated  as  the  natural  and  proper 
sequel  to  the  facts  which  the  Gospels  record,  the  Epistles 
themselves  are  likewise  evidence  to  the  prior  existence  of 
certain  facts  which  were  substantially  those  of  the  Gospels. 
If  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  as  the  Gospels  uniformly  declare 
Him  to  have  been,  then  the  Epistles  are  the  record  and 
abiding  evidence  of  certain  results,  not  indeed  such  as  we 
might  beforehand  have  expected  the  Gospels  to  produce, 
but  such  as  could  not  have  been  produced  but  for  the 
reality  of  the  facts  they  record,  and  the  belief  they  are 
written  to  proclaim,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 

The  Pauline  Epistles,  then,  are  evidence,  first,  of  certain 
facts,  such  as  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  which,  as 
long  as  these  writings  last,  cannot  be  resolved  into  myth 
or  fiction;  and,  secondly,  they  are  evidence  of  the  very 
widespread  acceptance  of  a  particular  belief,  and  of  the 
results  which  followed  its  acceptance.  This  was  the  con- 
viction or  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  The  Epistles, 
moreover,  are  evidence,  conclusive  and  undeniable,  of  the 
acceptance  of  this  belief,  which  was  based  upon  facts, 
within  a  short  space  of  time  after  the  occurrence  of  the 
facts  upon  which  it  was  based.  It  is  certain  also  that  the 
widespread  acceptance  of  this  belief,  and  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  religion  involving  it,  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 
the  assumption  that  it  was  due  solely  to  the  influence  of 
the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  because,  if  so,  it  is  pre- 
sumable that  there  would  not  have  been  the  marked 
difference  there  is  between  the  only  records  we  possess  of 
that  life  and  teaching,  and  the  effects  of  its  influence  as 
we  see  them  in  the  Epistles.  Consequently,  in  order  to 

3  Cf.  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  13;  St.  Mark  xiv.  9,  etc. 


230  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

account  for  its  acceptance,  we  must  throw  in  the  operation 
of  another  element,  without  which  it  is  not  possible  that 
Jesus  should  have  been  the  Christ,  or  that  the  declaration 
that  He  was  should  have  met  with  any  widespread 
acceptance,  and  this  element  is  the  bestowal  of  new  life 
which  is  implied  in  His  resurrection  and  in  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  followed  it. 

Not  only  is  the  statement  of  the  resurrection  as  a  fact 
implied  in  every  one  of  the  Epistles,  but  the  evidence  of 
its  effect  and  operation  as  a  new  principle  of  life  is  present 
and  conspicuous  everywhere.  And  it  is  the  presence  of 
this  element  which  at  once  accounts  for  and  explains  not 
only  the  existence  of  the  Epistles  themselves,  but  also  the 
fact  of  the  marked  difference  which  exists  between  them 
and  the  Gospels.  The  Gospels  are  ostensibly  the  records 
of  certain  facts  and  teaching,  and  of  certain  facts  and 
teaching  which  ostensibly  lead  on  and  up  to  another  great 
and  transcendent  fact  which  is  supposed  to  rest  upon  them, 
while  the  effect  that  the  whole  together  are  intended  to 
produce  is  the  conviction  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  The 
Epistles,  on  the  other  hand,  are  the  expression  of  the 
results  which  followed  this  conviction.  The  Gospels  show 
us  how  Jesus  claimed  to  be  and  was  the  giver  of  new  life  ; 
the  Epistles  show  us  the  operation  and  reality  of  that  new 
life  He  gave.  The  Gospels,  therefore,  one  and  all,  stop 
short  exactly  there  where  the  Epistles  begin.  The  Gospels 
declare  and  disclose  to  us  a  great  fact ;  the  Epistles  show 
us  the  operation  and  consequence  of  that  fact.  It  is 
impossible  that  the  outward  aspect  of  the  two  should  be 
identical.  The  teaching  of  Jesus,  marvellous  and  novel 
as  it  was,  as  a  motive  power  was  and  could  be  nothing  in 
comparison  of  His  resurrection,  if  that  resurrection  was  a 
fact.  The  Epistles  themselves,  regarded  as  mere  literary 
productions,  are  evidence  that  it  was  a  fact.  For  they 
could  not  have  been  produced  at  the  time  and  under  the 


vri.]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  231 

circumstances  they  were  produced,  and  by  the  man  who 
produced  them,  and  with  the  essential  features  that  cha- 
racterise them,  unless  it  had  been  a  fact.  They  are  not 
merely  the  transcript  of  certain  personal  opinions,  but 
evidence  to  the  reality  of  a  fact  producing  them.  For, 
otherwise,  we  must  admit  that  the  phenomena  presented  by 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  by  the  early  Christian  churches 
to  which  they  were  sent,  were  the  product  of  deception  and 
delusion,  which  is  verily  absurd. 

Although,  then,  it  is  true  that  the  Gospels  have  drawn 
the  portrait  of  the  human  life  of  Christ,  while  the  Epistles 
have  presented  us  with  the  contrast  of  internal  conception, 
and  although  the  record  of  the  latter  is  undoubtedly  earlier 
in  point  of  time,  as  it  naturally  would  be,  there  is  no 
essential  antagonism  or  difference  between  them.  If  we 
know  anything  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  one  prominent 
and  inseparable  feature  of  it  must  have  been  that  He  was 
Himself  the  Christ,  for  otherwise  the  continual  proclama- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  from  the  first  it  was 
proclaimed,  and  the  appointment  of  the  twelve  and  of  the 
seventy  to  proclaim  it,  would  have  been  unmeaning. 

But  it  is  precisely  this  truth  which  is  the  kernel  of  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  He  has  himself  accepted  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  and  his  writings  are  the  monument  of  his  accept- 
ance and  the  record  of  all  that  it  implied.  To  have  such 
a  record  as  this  so  early  in  point  of  time  is  a  proof  that 
the  leaven  had  begun  to  work,  while  it  is  itself  an  indica- 
tion of  the  manner  in  which  it  worked.  But  just  as  the 
leaven  is  distinct  from  the  meal  in  which  it  works,  and 
from  the  effect  produced  by  its  mode  of  working,  so  also 
necessarily  is  the  record  of  the  human  life  of  Christ  dis- 
tinct and  different  from  the  picture  of  that  new  life  to 
which  it  had  given  the  impulse. 

Nor  is  it  otherwise  than  natural  that  traces  of  the 
existence  and  operation  of  this  new  life,  while  carrying  us 


232  The  Christ  of  the  Paidine  Epistles.         [LECT. 

back  inevitably  to  a  cause  producing  it,  should  have  come 
into  existence  as  they  did  in  the  letters  of  St.  Paul,  before, 
possibly,  any  detailed  record  of  the  life  of  Christ  had  been 
committed  to  writing. 4  This,  indeed,  it  may  not  be  given 
us  to  decide,  but  all  that  we  are  concerned  to  shoW  is  that 
the  unquestionable  testimony  of  St  Paul's  Epistles,  as- 
suming as  they  do  the  framework  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
and  the  essence  of  the  Gospel  teaching,  is  in  no  way  con- 
tradicted, and  is  not  necessarily  modified  by  the  possibly 
subsequent  attempts  to  present  in  detail  a  record  of  the 
human  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  consistency 
of  the  various  extant  narratives  among  themselves  is  alto- 
gether a  different  matter,  upon  which  we  need  not  now 
touch ;  but  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  the  utmost  that 
can  be  made  of  their  alleged  contradictions  and  incon- 
sistencies is  as  nothing  compared  with  the  weight  and 
significance  of  their  combined  testimony,  confirmed  and 
corroborated  as  it  is  by  the  wholly  independent  and 
necessarily  unconscious  witness  of  the  writings  of  St. 
Paul,  to  the  main  central  and  essential  facts  of  the 
history. 

In  the  face,  then,  of  the  various  considerations  which 
we  have  had  in  review  before  us,  it  appears  that  we  cannot 
set  aside  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  Pauline  writings  to 
the  nature  and  origin  of  the  earliest  Christian  belief,  and 
of  the  first  Christian  society.  However  numerous  and 
interesting  the  questions  that  may  arise  on  these  matters 
which  we  cannot  answer,  they  are 'really  inconsiderable 
when  compared  with  the  amount  of  positive  and  satisfac- 

4  This  would  naturally  be  the  case  in  a  society  as  yet  hardly  conscious 
of  its  own  existence ;  and  the  fact  that  it  historically  was  so  is  no  slight 
indication  of  the  reality  and  genuineness  of  the  causes  at  work.  There 
could  hardly  he  a  greater  proof  of  the  historic  origin  of  Christianity  than 
the  known  existence  of  writings  like  the  Pauline  Epistles  within  a  quarter 
of  a  century  after  that  event  which  was  alike  the  foundation  of  them  and 
of  the  religion  from  which  they  sprang — the  death  of  Christ. 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  233 

tory  evidence  that  is  fairly  within  our  reach.  We  see  that 
the  same  foundation  of  belief  is  virtually  implied  in  all 
the  Apostle's  letters, — and  that  this  is  a  foundation  of  fact. 
He  could  not  have  appealed  to  the  Colossians,  as  he  did, 
to  set  their  affections  on  things  above,  and  not  on  things 
on  the  earth,  because  they  were  dead,  and  their  life  was 
hid  with  Christ  in  God,  unless  the  resurrection  and  as- 
cension of  Jesus  had  been  proclaimed  at  Colossse,  unless 
Jesus  had  been  accepted  as  the  Christ  accordingly,  and 
unless  the  acceptance  of  that  truth  had  been  followed,  in 
those  to  whom  he  wrote,  by  the  answer  of  their  own  con- 
science to  it  in  the  personal  experience  of  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  They  were  themselves  conscious  and  inde- 
pendent witnesses  to  the  fact  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostle  had  wrought  in  them,  as  truth  alone  could  work. 
They  knew  that,  as  they  were  not  the  victims  of  delusion 
on  the  part  of  the  Apostle,  so  they  were  not  acting  in  col- 
lusion with  him,  but  were  free,  responsible,  and  indepen- 
dent witnesses  to  the  truth  which  he  proclaimed,  as  well 
as  to  the  tendency  of  that  truth  to  act  upon  their  lives. 
This,  which  is  alike  the  grand  result  of  one  and  all  his 
letters,  and  a  result  about  which  we  may  be  quite  sure,  is 
at  once  superior  to  and  independent  of  a  multitude  of 
minor  and  subordinate  questions  about  which  we  must  for 
ever  be  content  to  remain  in  ignorance. 

There  are  then,  from  what  has  been  said,  certain  broad 
conclusions  which  we  may  safely  draw.  The  body  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  but  peculiarly  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  both  from  their  manifest  character  and  their  known 
origin,  afford  irresistible  and  conclusive  evidence  to  the 
operation  of  a  new  principle  in  the  world  to  which  there 
is  no  parallel  in  secular  literature.  This  principle  openly 
declared  itself  as  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As 
to  its  novelty  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  the  only  instance 
of  a  similar  agency  at  work,  and  this  is  but  a  partial 


234  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.         [LECT. 

parallel,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. As  to  its  tendency,  also,  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
unless  we  are  prepared  to  assert  that  the  moral  tendency 
of  the  Pauline  writings  is  pernicious,  and  the  principles 
inculcated  bad.  As  to  its  origin,  therefore,  there  can  alone 
be  any  doubt,  whether  it  was  righteous  and  true,  or 
whether  it  was  virtually  unrighteous  because  inherently 
and  radically  false.  And  this  is  practically  determined 
by  the  former  consideration ;  for  ~by  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them. 

But  further,  this  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was 
continually  appealed  to  and  claimed  by  the  first  preachers 
of  the  Gospel,  and  implied  and  evidenced  in  the  early 
Christian  correspondence  of  St.  Paul,  was  ever  promised 
and  bestowed  in  confirmation  of  the  truth  which  was 
embraced  when  Jesus  was  acknowledged  as  the  Christ. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  evidence  of  a  principle  at 
work  analogous  to  that  of  which  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  regarded  merely  as  writings,  are  the  abiding 
monument,  outside  the  limits  of  the  early  Christian  society. 
This  is  simply  a  question  of  literature,  and  not  at  all  an 
assertion  of  dogma.  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe, 
may  fairly  and  conclusively  be  taken  as  the  motto  of  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures.  We  do  not  assume  inspiration 
in  order  to  exalt  those  Scriptures;  but  we  take  those 
Scriptures  as  they  are,  and  deduce  from  their  existence 
and  their  highly  exceptional  phenomena,  the  necessary 
postulate  of  a  special  and  unique  inspiration.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  confession  of  the  name  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ 
was  followed  by  results  new  and  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  If  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  were  lost  to  us, 
the  measure  of  those  results  would  be  preserved  imperish- 
ably  in  the  known  and  undoubted  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 
As  they  could  not  have  been  written  but  for  the  conviction 
and  confession  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  so  neither  are 


VIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  23  $ 

the  phenomena  they  present  and  imply  to  be  accounted 
for  on  the  supposition,  that  Jesus  was  not  the  Christ :  on 
the  supposition,  that  is,  either  that  the  facts  which  proved 
Him  to  be  the  Christ  were  fallacious  and  unreal,  or 
that  there  was  something  essentially  hollow  and  unsound 
in  the  conception  of  that  office,  and  those  hopes  which  He 
was  declared  to  have  fulfilled.  For  Jesus  was  proclaimed 
as  the  Christ,  not  to  the  Jews  only,  but  to  the  Gentiles 
also.  Jesus  was  accepted  as  the  Christ,  not  by  the  Jews 
only  who  believed,  but  by  the  Gentiles  also. 

There  is  therefore,  in  the  Christ-office  of  Jesus,  that 
which  is  alike  independent  of  nationality  and  of  time. 
We,  in  the  present  day,  cannot  afford  to  surrender  the 
claim  advanced  for  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  for,  in  so  doing, 
we  shall  renounce  our  title  to  the  name  of  Christian.  It 
was  to  the  validity  of  this  claim,  no  less  than  to  the 
historic  reality  of  the  person  advancing  and  fulfilling  it, 
that  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  promised  and  bestowed 
as  an  attesting  witness.  His  testimony  would  have  been 
invalidated,  and  God,  in  the  language  of  St.  John,  have 
been  made  a  liar,  had  there  been  any  flaw  in  the  cardinal 
facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  or  in  the  reality  of  that  office 
which  He  claimed  to  fill. 

And  thus,  lastly,  the  fact  of  Jesus  being  the  Christ, 
which  is  witnessed  to  by  the  historic  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  alone  will  enable  us  adequately  and  satis- 
factorily to  account  for  the  essential  and  characteristic 
features  of  the  earliest  Christian  literature,  as  we  find 
them  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  becomes  the  effectual 
and  conclusive  seal  of  the  substantial  and  essential  truth 
of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as  a  whole.  There  was 
a  hope  embodied  in  those  Scriptures,  which  was  not  of 
man's  discovery  or  conception,  which  was  Divinely -in- 
spired, and  based  on  a  promise  which  was  God-given.  It 
was  a  hope  which  grew  brighter  and  brighter  as  the  time 


236  The  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  [vn. 

of  its  fulfilment  drew  near.  It  was  a  hope  of  which  we 
can  clearly  trace  the  development,  and  yet  a  hope  to  which, 
neither  in  its  origin  nor  in  its  development,  can  we  assign 
a  sufficient  natural  cause.  It  has  never  been  given  to  any 
nation  but  one  to  indulge  instinctively  an  irrepressible 
hope  like  that  of  the  Messiah,  which  the  progress  of  the 
ages  has  fulfilled.  It  has  never  been  given  to  any  literature 
but  one  to  express  this  hope  in  a  thousand  forms,  un- 
consciously to  conceive,  to  nurture,  and  to  develop  it,  in 
manifold  parts  and  in  divers  manners,  till  it  became  a 
substantial  and  consistent  whole,  and  to  leave  this  ex- 
pression for  centuries  as  an  heirloom  to  mankind,  the 
significance  and  preciousness  of  which  time  alone  would 
declare  and  history  conclusively  reveal.  But  to  this 
nation  and  to  this  literature  it  was  given.  The  national 
mind  of  Israel  was  pregnant  with  a  mighty  thought,  a 
thought  which  we  cannot  fail  to  detect  from  the  earliest 
to  the  latest  monuments  of  its  literature.  As  it  was  im- 
possible that  this  thought  should  be  self-originated,  we 
can  only  recognise  it  as  the  fruit  of  the  nation's  excep- 
tional nearness  and  dearness  to  God,  the  offspring  of 
God's  covenant  and  union  with  the  nation ;  and  when  the 
life  of  Jesus  could  be  looked  back  upon  and  regarded  as 
a  whole,  then  it  was  found,  and  not  before,  that  that  life 
was  the  fullest  and  the  complete  realisation  of  the  mighty 
thought.  When  He  was  recognised  as  the  man-child 
whom  Zion  travailed  to  bring  forth,  the  fulness  of  the 
hope  which,  for  long  ages,  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  poets 
had  cherished,  and  the  law  itself  had  foreshadowed  and 
symbolised, — when  He  was  accepted  as  the  Christ  and 
the  Prophet  that  should  come  into  the  world,  then  it  was 
seen  that  the  hope  of  the  fathers  was  not  a  dream,  and 
that  He  who  had  spoken  by  the  prophets  was  none  other 
than  the  Holy  Spirit  of  truth. 


LECTURE   VIII. 

THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  OTHER  BOOKS. 


THE  Bible  is  not  such  a  book  as  man  would  have  made,  if  he  could ;  or 
could  have  made,  if  he  would. — Henry  Rogers. 


LECTURE  VIII. 

/  Jesus  have  sent  mine  angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the 
Churches.  I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David,  and  the  bright 
and  morning  star. — REV.  xxii.  16. 

r  I  ^HAT  which  we  know  as  the  doctrine  or  conception  of 
-*-  the  Christ  is  only  to  be  gathered  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  a  whole.  The  writings  which  by  accident  or  design 
are  comprised  in  that  collection  present  us  with  a  certain 
idea  which  is  completely  contained  in  them,  and  which 
cannot  be  added  to  by  anything  outside  of  them  from  the 
rest  of  Christian  literature.  This  is,  first,  the  conception 
of  the  human  life  of  Jesus  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  Gospels, 
and  secondly,  the  idea  that  He  was  the  Christ  or  Messiah 
promised  of  old,  which  is  common  to  every  book  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  early  progress  of  which  we  read  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  various  expressions  of 
which  we  find  in  the  several  Epistles  and  in  the  book  of 
the  Eevelation. 

The  substantive  result  of  this  aggregate  of  writings  is 
the  doctrine  or  religion  of  the  Christ  which  is  presented  to 
us  under  various  aspects  and  by  various  minds.  It  is  quite 
open  to  us,  then,  to  regard  this  conception  or  idea,  contained 
as  it  is  in  the  New  Testament,  as  a  positive  fact  of  literature 
produced  approximately  within  the  first  century  of  our  era. 

And  it  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is  no  other  literary 
phenomenon  answering  to  this  fact  since  its  appearance 
eighteen  centuries  ago.  Neither  was  there  any  strict 
parallel  to  it  before  its  appearance.  For,  wonderful  as 


240  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

the  phenomena  presented  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament  really  are,  and  supplying  as  they  do  the  foun- 
dation upon  which  those  of  the  New  Testament  are  based, 
they  nevertheless  offer  no  true  parallel  to  them. 

For  the  doctrine  or  conception  of  the  Christ  as  we  have 
it,  which  is  the  essential  and  necessary  basis  of  the  religion 
which  we  call  Christianity,  is  unquestionably  the  product 
of  a  human  life.  In  whatever  aspect  we  regard  the  Gospels, 
every  one  of  them  leads  us  up  to  a  human  life  as  the 
ultimate  reason  of  its  existence.  Even  if  the  narrative  is 
overlaid  with  unhistoric  details,  it  is  impossible  but  that 
there  must  be  an  historic  foundation  for  the  main  events 
of  it.  And  the  fourfold  testimony  of  the  existing  Gospels 
is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  corroborative  of  this  con- 
clusion. The  history  of  the  Acts,  trustworthy  as  it 
undoubtedly  is  in  its  general  tenor,  is  likewise  impossible 
without  supposing  the  previous  existence  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  And  when  we  come  to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  written 
as  some  of  them  probably  were  before  any  of  the  other 
books,  and  leading  us  up,  as  we  have  seen  they  do,  to  a 
much  earlier  period  in  the  life  of  the  writer,  who  must 
himself  have  been  contemporary  with  the  Person  whom  he 
first  persecuted  and  afterwards  preached,  it  is  abundantly 
evident  that  the  human  life  of  that  Person  is  not  only  the 
corner-stone  of  every  epistle  that  he  wrote,  but  the  indis- 
pensable foundation  of  his  after  history,  without  which 
almost  all  that  we  know  of  him  remains  inexplicable. 

So  far  then  as  the  Christ  idea  or  the  doctrine  of  the 
Christ  is  connected  with  the  person  of  Jesus,  the  reality  of 
His  human  life  is  established  beyond  a  doubt,  for  the 
existing  phenomena  of  the  literature,  as  we  have  it,  would 
be  impossible  otherwise. 

It  remains  then  to  notice  other  aspects  of  the  same  idea 
presented  to  us  in  the  New  Testament,  and  to  inquire  what 
their  relation  is  to  those  we  have  already  considered.  These 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  241 

are  principally  three ;  those,  namely,  of  the  Epistle  of  St. 
James,  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  and  the  Eevelation. 
The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  do 
not  present  the  same  marked  contrast  to  the  other  writings 
that  these  do ;  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  mainly 
the  development  of  one  idea,  that,  namely,  of  the  priest- 
hood of  Jesus  Christ,  which,  though  not  foreign  to  some  of 
the  other  writers,  is  worthy  of  separate  and  independent 
consideration,  but  not  for  our  present  object. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  James  naturally  comes  first,  because 
of  its  supposed  antagonism  to  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  to 
which  our  attention  was  last  directed.  The  writer  calls 
himself  a  servant  of  Gfod  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?- 
thereby  implying  not  only  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  but 
that  in  some  way  He  was  unexceptionally  near  to  God. 
He  speaks  afterwards  of  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Lord  of  glory?  which  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  under- 
stand unless  He  had  in  some  way  been  glorified.  And 
His  resurrection  and  ascension  to  glory  after  His  death  of 
shame  are  virtually  implied  when  he  speaks  of  the  coming 
of  the  Lord?  Moreover,  the  poor  who  are  rick  in  faith,  the 
faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom 
which  God  hath  promised  to  them  that  love  Him,  are  said 
to  be  the  chosen  of  God  ;4  which  recalls  the  preaching  of 
Jesus,  Eepent  ye  and  believe  the  Gospel  ;6  the  Gospel  of  the 
kingdom  ;6  many  be  called  but  few  chosen,7  and  the  like. 
His  reference  to  the  engrafted  word,  which  is  to  be  received 
with  meekness,  and  is  able  to  save  the  soul,8  brings  back  to 
us  very  forcibly  the  parable  of  the  sower,  as  also  does  the 
fruit  of  righteousness,  which  is  sown  in  peace  of  them  that 
make  peace.9  The  earnest  exhortation  to  be  doers  of  the 
word  and  not  hearers  only^  reminds  us  of  the  conclusion 

1  St.  James  i.  1.  *  ii.  1.  3  v.  8.  4  ii.  5. 

5  St.  Mark  i.  15.  6  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  14.  *  xx.  16. 

8  St.  James  i.  21.  8  iii.  18.  10  i.  22. 

B 


242  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

of  the  sermon  on  the  mount ;  and  the  injunction  to  ask  in 
faith,  nothing  wavering*  recalls  the  promise  of  the  Lord, 
Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you.2  Such  admonitions  as,  Let 
patience  have  her  perfect  work,  that  ye,  may  be  perfect?  and 
Take,  my  brethren,  the  prophets  who  have  spoken  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  for  an  example  of  suffering  affliction  and  of 
patience?  so  frequently  repeated  as  they  are,  follow  on 
wonderfully  from  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  so  per- 
secuted they  the  prophets  which  were  before  you,5  and  be  ye 
tJieref ore  perfect.®  The  worthy  name  by  which  ye  are  called1 
can  hardly  be  other  than  the  name  of  Christ  in  baptism. 

And  though  there  is  no  direct  allusion  to  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  yet  as  a  time  of  persecution  and  suffering  is 
implied,  and  patience  is  continually  enjoined,  we  must 
presuppose  His  death  who  had  given  so  conspicuous  an 
example  of  patience  and  was  now  exalted  to  glory :  while, 
Behold  we  count  them  happy  which  endure*  is  borrowed 
from  the  words  of  Jesus,  Blessed  are  they  which  are  perse- 
cuted for  righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,9  and  He  that  endureth  unto  the  end,  the  same  shall 
be  saved,10  as  also  is,  Blessed  is  the  man  that  endureth  temp- 
tation, for  when  he  is  tried  he  shall  receive  the  crown  of  life 
which  the  Lord  hath  promised  to  them  that  love  him.11 

In  fact  there  is  probably  no  document  of  the  New 
Testament  that  has  so  many  points  of  contact  with  the 
synoptical  Gospels  as  the  Epistle  of  St.  James;  clearly 
showing  that,  whatever  was  his  conception  of  the  Christ, 
the  person  in  whom  he  so  believed  was  none  other  than 
the  Jesus  whose  history  they  record.  We  have  then  as  a 
common  framework  in  this  Epistle,  the  Fatherhood  of 
God,12  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  who  is  acknowledged  as  the 

1  St.  James  i.  6.  *  St.  Matt.  vii.  7.  3  St.  James  i.  4. 

4  St.  James  v.  10.  5  St.  Matt.  v.  12.  «  v.  48. 

7  St.  James  ii.  7.  8  v.  11.  »  St.  Matt.  v.  10. 

10  St  Matt.  xxiv.  13.  n  St.  James  i.  12.  12  St.  James  i.  17,  27. 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  243 

Christ,1  His  return  to  judgment,2  and  manifold  allusions 
to  His  recorded  teaching.3  The  conception  embodied  in  it 
is  that  rather  of  a  glorified  than  a  suffering  Christ,  and 
yet  the  aspect  of  Christian  life  which  is  most  prominent 
is  that  of  fellowship  with  His  sufferings  in  unceasing 
patience,  and  imitation  of  His  example  in  the  consistency 
of  righteous  conversation.  The  clear  and  emphatic  recog- 
nition of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  is  sufficient,  at  all  events,  to 
add  this  Epistle  to  the  number  of  those  early  writings 
which  the  doctrine  and  religion  of  the  Christ  originated, 
however  various  its  testimony  may  be. 

But  there  are  certain  points  in  which  it  approximates 
with  remarkable  closeness  to  the  Pauline  teaching,  not- 
withstanding its  apparent  difference.  For  example,  when 
the  writer  says,  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word 
of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  firstfruits  of  his  crea- 
tures,*  he  virtually  implies  that  the  Gospel  had  acted  with 
a  regenerating  influence  on  himself  and  his  converts,  as 
the  effect  of  it  is  so  frequently  described  by  St.  Paul.  It 
had  come  with  a  new  power,  and  had  given  them  new 
life,  even  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  had  said,  You 
hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.5 
The  spiritual  operation  which  is  thus  implied  is  a  clear 
proof  that  to  the  minds  of  both  writers  the  same  effect 
was  present.  The  word  or  message  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
was  the  word  of  truth,  was  no  dead  formal  precept  of 
morality,  or  repetition  of  a  mere  historical  statement,  but 
a  living  energetic  principle  capable  of  begetting  and  im- 
parting life.  A  confession  like  this  is  invaluable  as  com- 
ing from  St.  James,  because  the  common-sense  ethical 
character  of  his  Epistle  is  apt  to  blind  us  to  the  necessary 
foundation  of  spiritual  life  which  is  pre-supposed  in  it. 
And  this  spiritual  life  was  as  much  the  gift  of  Jesus 

1  St.  James  ii.  1.          2  v.  8.          3  v.  12;  St.  Matt.  v.  34,  etc. 
4  St.  James  i.  18.         5  Ephes.  ii.  1. 


244  T/ie  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

Christ,  and  the  effect  of  belief  in  His  word,  to  him,  as  it 
was  to  St.  Paul. 

This  assertion  on  his  part  is  evidence,  therefore,  not 
only  of  a  common  basis  of  facts  which  each  writer  as- 
sumed, but  of  a  common  method  of  operation  implied  as 
being  inherent  in  the  facts.  The  belief  that  Jesus  risen 
and  glorified  was  the  Christ,  is  acknowledged  by  St.  James 
to  have  had  the  same  quickening  and  reviving  power  in 
obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  which  is  affirmed  by  the 
great  Apostle  of  the  Divine  election,  who  says  that  the 
gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
who  was  delivered  for  our  offences  and  raised  again  for  our 
justification;1  that  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him 
that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy? 

Nor  is  there  the  same  hopeless  divergence  between 
these  two  writers  on  the  question  as  to  how  man  can  be 
just  before  God,  which  is  frequently  supposed,  and  as  at 
first  sight  appears.  It  is  impossible  to  resist  the  cogency 
of  the  trenchant  practical  arguments  of  St.  James  on  the 
worthlessness  of  faith  which  has  no  influence  on  works. 
They  are  obviously  conclusive.  Whatever  may  have  been 
their  historic  relation  to  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  there 
can  be  no  question  that  they  form  a  wholesome  ethical 
complement  to  that  teaching ;  one,  however,  which  is 
virtually  implied  in  every  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  himself. 
But  just  as  the  practical  conclusions  of  St.  James  are 
implied  and  expressed  in  St.  Paul,  so  likewise  are  the 
principles  of  St.  Paul  implied  and  virtually  expressed  in 
St.  James.  For  what  is  the  foundation  principle  of  St. 
Paul,  but  that  all  the  world  must  become  guilty  before 
God  if  judged  according  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  Law.3 
Therefore  it  is  that  God  hath  set  forth  in  the  Gospel  a 
more  excellent  way  whereby  the  guilty  may  be  accounted 

1  Rom.  vi.  23 ;  iv.  25.  2  ix.  16. 

3  Rom.  iii.  19,  20. 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  245 

righteous  in  Jesus  Christ.4  This  is  the  very  word  of  truth 
which  quickens  and  saves  the  soul.  But  since,  as  we  have 
seen,  this  latter  truth  has  already  been  stated  by  St.  James, 
so  also  is  the  previous  foundation  principle  established  by 
him.  For  when  he  says,  Whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole 
law,  and  yet  offend  in  one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all?  what 
does  he  do  virtually,  but  bring  in  the  whole  world  guilty 
before  God,  as  St.  Paul  has  already  done  ?  Judged  by  the 
strict  letter  of  the  Law,  there  is  no  man  living  who  sinneth 
not.  This  was  alike  the  teaching  of  Solomon6  and  of  David,7 
and  consequently  St.  James  can  neither  have  been  ignorant 
of  nor  have  run  counter  to  it;  but  when  he  asserts  this 
foundation  principle  in  the  way  he  does,  we  are  able  to 
see  precisely  where  the  operation  of  that  word  of  truth 
comes  in,  which  being  received  with  meekness  and  engrafted 
in  the  heart  is  able  to  save  the  soul. 

Surely,  therefore,  we  may  fairly  say  that  St.  Paul  and 
St.  James  represent  two  aspects  of  Christian  truth,  but 
only  two  aspects  of  the  same  Christian  truth.  The  same 
Divine  light  fell  upon  minds  of  different  hue  and  colour, 
and  the  effect  produced  differed  accordingly;  but  as  we 
can  detect  evidence  of  the  same  operation  in  both,  so 
likewise  have  we  conclusive  proof  that  the  origin  of  the 
light  was  the  same  to  both,  for  it  streamed  forth  from  the 
glorified  Jesus  who  was  by  both  acknowledged  as  the 
Christ,  the  chosen  of  God. 

We  pass  on  next  to  the  Epistles  of  St.  John,  which  we 
treat  as  documents  falling  perhaps  within  the  first  century, 
and  valuable  for  our  purpose  for  the  evidence  only  which 
they  furnish  as  to  the  writer's  conception  of  the  doctrine  and 
religion  of  the  Christ.  In  the  opening  of  the  First  Epistle 
we  have  the  emphatic  assertion  that  the  writer  was  an 
eyewitness  of  the  human  life  which  had  been  manifested 

4  Rofei.  iii.  21.  5  St.  James  ii.  10. 

6  1  Kings  viii.  46.  7  Ps.  cxliii.  2. 


246  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

and  had  come  forth  from  the  Father.  This  was  the  human 
life  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.1  Nor  is  there  any  doubt  as  to 
the  identity  of  this  person  with  the  historic  Jesus  who  lived 
and  died,  because  the  writer  says  that  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.2  Here  is  the  recog- 
nition of  that  idea  of  the  high  priesthood  of  Jesus  Christ 
which  is  the  main  subject  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  cleansing  is  a  spiritual  cleansing,  but  it  is  the  inward 
analogue  of  the  ceremonial  purification  and  atonement  for 
sin  typified  under  the  Law.  As  the  fact  of  our  Lord's 
death  is  not  expressly  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  of  St. 
James,  so  neither  is  the  fact  of  His  resurrection  in  the 
Epistles  of  St.  John,  but  is  continually  implied.  Eor  He 
is  recognised  as  the  advocate  with  the  Father,  and  as  being 
Himself  the  source  of  life,  which  involves  therefore  His 
resurrection  and  ascension.  In  the  Epistle  of  St.  James, 
the  writer's  mind  was  chiefly  filled  with  the  glorified  con- 
dition of  Jesus,  and  the  necessity  of  a  life  conformable  to 
it  in  the  brethren;  but  St.  John  seems  mainly  occupied 
with  the  thought  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  of  the  life 
which  is  centred  in  Him.  As  St.  James  also  presupposed 
without  alluding  in  terms  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  so 
St.  John,  on  the  other  hand,  not  only  presupposes  but 
expressly  refers  to  that  work;  for,  says  he,  ye  have  an 
unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things? 

But  that  which  will  at  once  be  recognised  as  the  most 
characteristic  feature  of  the  teaching  of  St.  John's  Epistles 
is  the  prominence  he  assigns  to  love.  The  bent  of  St. 
James's  character  was  moral  righteousness  and  integrity, 
that  of  St.  John's  is  devout  and  fervent  love.  It  was  a 
love  borrowed  from  the  love  of  Him  who  laid  down  His 
life  for  sinners.  It  is  this  love  whereby  we  are  to  have 
boldness  in  the  day  of  judgment?  in  the  expectation  of  which 

1  1  John  i.  1-3.  2  i.  7. 

3  1  John  ii.  20.     Of.  also  iii.  24;  iv.  13.        *  iv.  17. 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  247 

day  of  His  appearing  we  detect  another  point  of  contact 
with  St.  James,  as  likewise  with  St.  Paul.  The  notion  of 
a  death  for  sin,  the  effect  of  which  has  been  to  put  away 
sin  and  to  cleanse  from  sin,5  is  so  common  in  St.  Paul  that 
we  need  not  dwell  upon  it;  and  the  notion  of  a  love 
derived  from  the  love  of  Christ  cannot  be  foreign  to  him 
who  has  drawn  for  us  the  famous  picture  of  love  in  his 
First  Epistle  to  Corinth. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  these  various  writings  are  so  many 
illustrations  of  the  effect  produced  upon  individual  minds 
by  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  belief  that  He 
was  the  Christ.  It  is  not  upon  their  authority  that  we 
dwell,  so  much  as  upon  the  undeniable  evidence  they  afford 
of  the  operation  of  a  particular  belief,  based  upon  a  series 
of  facts  which  are  manifestly  common  to  all  the  writers. 
That  this  belief  and  these  facts  would  operate  variously 
on  various  minds  was  only  natural  and  to  be  expected. 
The  differences,  however,  are  plainly  differences  of  indi- 
vidual character,  and  the  identity  of  operation  and  the 
sameness  of  results  produced,  which  are  recognisable  in 
all,  are  the  more  remarkable  from  this  necessary  contrast 
of  individual  character.  And  it  is  the  general  and  broad 
result  thus  produced  in  a  variety  of  minds  manifestly  so 
independent  as  to  be  capable  of  being  not  seldom  repre- 
sented as  antagonistic,  that  we  call  the  doctrine,  or  concep- 
tion, or  religion  of  the  Christ.  The  unity  and  completeness 
of  the  full  idea  are  to  be  gathered  only  from  a  survey  of 
all  the  records.  One  part  of  the  conception  is  more 
prominent  in  some  writings  than  it  is  in  others.  But  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  all  are  requisite  for  the  expression  of 
the  complete  conception  before  we  can  deal  with  it  as  a 
substantive  whole. 

With  a  view  to  this,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Jude  may  be  briefly  mentioned  next.  In  the  First  Epistle 

s  2  Cor.  v.  21,  etc. 


248  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

of  St.  Peter,  it  matters  not  now  who  wrote  it,  we  have  in 
the  opening  verses  the  sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  and 
future  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.1  "  The  strangers" 
to  whom  it  is  written  are  addressed  as  elect  according  to 
the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  and  they  are  charac- 
terised as  having  been  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed, 
but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  or  reason  of  God,  who 
liveth  and  abideth  for  ever.2  Furthermore,  we  have  men- 
tion made  of  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  spirit 
of  Christ,  through  which  the  disciples  have  purified  their 
souls  in  obeying  the  truth ; B  and  the  Gospel,  which  is  iden- 
tified with  the  spoken  word  of  the  Lord,4  is  said  to  have 
been  preached  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven.5 
The  redemption  of  believers  is  said  to  be  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot,6  showing  that  the  writer  recognised  in  the  death  of 
Jesus  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  types  of  the  law. 
The  Epistle  is  evidence  also  that  many  Gentiles,  which  in 
time  past  were  not  a  people,  had  now  become  the  people  of 
God;7  that  they  willingly  regarded  themselves  as  spiritual 
heirs  of  the  promises  made  to  Israel ;  and  that  this  change 
in  their  position  had  been  brought  about  by  their  acknow- 
ledgment of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.8  It  is  clear,  also,  that 
times  of  trouble  were  at  hand,  and  that  some  had  begun 
to  be  reproached  for  the  name  of  Christ,  and  to  suffer  for 
being  called  Christian  ;9  but  the  day  of  Christ's  glory  was 
about  to  be  revealed,  when  they  would  be  glad  with  ex- 
ceeding joy.10  The  practice  of  baptism  as  a  common  rite 11 
is  also  spoken  of  in  this  Epistle,  and  the  responsibility  of 
godly  conversation  is  strongly  insisted  upon.12 

The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is  chiefly  remarkable 

1  1  Peter  i.  1-11.  2  i.  23.  3  i.  2, 11,  22. 

4  1  Peter  i.  25.  5  i.  12.  6  i.  19. 

7  1  Peter  ii.  10.  8  ii.  7.  9  iv.  12,  14,  16. 

10  1  Peter  iv.  13.  «  iii.  21.  12  i.  15,  etc. 


viii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other 


for  its  vivid  anticipation  of  judgment,  for  its  strenuous 
inculcation  of  holiness  and  denunciation  of  ungodliness, 
and  for  the  additional  title  of  Saviour,  1  which  it  frequently 
assigns  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Familiarity  with  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  frequent  allusion  to 
them,  are  characteristic  of  both  these  Epistles. 

Passing  on  to  St.  Jude,  we  find  that  his  Epistle  is  ad- 
dressed to  them  that  are  sanctified  by  God  the  Father  and 
preserved  in  or  reserved  for  Jesus  Christ,  and  called.2  The 
writer  speaks  of  the  common  salvation,  which  he  implies 
was  obtained  through  the  grace  of  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ?  He  exhorts  his  disciples,  by  confirmation  in  the 
faith  and  prayer  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  keep  themselves  in 
the  love  of  God,  looking  for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  unto  eternal  life.4  He  makes  mention  of  certain 
feasts  of  charity,5  and  speaks  of  the  apostles  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  whose  spoken  words  must  have  been  fresh 
in  the  memory  of  those  to  whom  he  wrote.6  We  are  here, 
then,  as  it  were,  brought  face  to  face  with  men  who  had 
listened  to  the  teaching  of  those  who  had  received  their 
commission  from  the  Lord  himself,  and  we  have  collateral 
evidence  of  the  general  tenor  of  their  teaching. 

The  opening  of  the  Eevelation  of  St.  John  bears  witness 
to  belief  in  Jesus  as  one  who  had  died  and  risen  again;7 
who  was  to  come  with  clouds,  when  every  eye  should  see 
him,  and  they  also  which  pierced  him?  His  death  had  not 
only  been  a  priestly  expiation  for  sin,  but  it  had  conferred 
a  priesthood  upon  believers,9  even  as  St.  Peter  had  called 
them  a  royal  priesthood.™  The  offices  of  king  and  priest, 
which  were  united  in  Jesus  Christ,  were  united  also  in 
believers.  The  sublime  vision  of  the  Son  of  Man  in 
glory  is  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  this  part  of  the 

1  2  Peter  i.  1,  11  ;  ii.  20  ;  iii.  2,  18.         2  Jude  1.         3  Jude  4. 
4  Jude  21.  5  12.  e  17>  7  Rev.  i.  18< 

8  Rev.  i.  7.  9  i.  6.  10  1  Peter  ii.  9. 


250  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Boohs.  [LECT. 

Apocalypse,  the  whole  of  which  book  is  itself  an  exhibition 
of  the  glorified  Jesus  in  His  character  of  judge.  The 
Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  recognise  Him  as 
the  Son  of  God;1  as  he  which  searcheth  the  hearts  and  reins, 
and  will  give  to  every  one  according  to  his  works.2  Each  of 
these  Epistles  ends  with  the  remarkable  words, — He  that 
hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the 
churches, — the  Spirit  being  clearly  the  Spirit  of  Christ  or 
of  Him  which  hath  the  seven  Spirits  of  God.3  Jesus  Christ 
is  further  represented  in  the  Apocalypse  as  the  Lion  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah*  the  root  and  offspring  of  David,5  the  Lamb 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,6  who  hath  redeemed 
us  to  God  by  his  blood  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and 
people,  and  nation.1  The  saints  arrayed  in  white  robes  are 
said  to  be  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  had 
washed  their  robes  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.8  When  the  seventh  angel  sounded,  there  were  great 
voices  in  heaven,  saying, — The  kingdoms  of  this  world  are 
become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ;  and 
lie  shall  reign  for-  ever  and  ever.9  The  testimony  of  Jesus  is 
declared  to  be  the  spirit  of  prophecy  ;10  and  finally,  He  is 
Himself  called  The  Word  of  God,  and  is  said  to  have  on 
his  vesture  and  on  his  thigh  a  name  written,  King  of  kings, 
and  Lord  of  lords}1 

Such  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  Apocalyptic  conception 
of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  Whatever  may  be  the  date  of  the 
lievelation,  it  expresses,  perhaps,  the  fullest  development 
of  the  Messianic  character  and  glories  of  Jesus,  and  it  is 
unquestionably  the  work  of  a  man  who  had  been  nurtured 
in  Judaism.  It  represents,  moreover,  the  fullest  effect 
produced  by  turning  the  many-coloured  light  of  prophecy 
upon  the  personal  history  of  Jesus.  The  writer  sees  in  all 

1  Rev.  ii.  18.  *  ii.  23.  3  iii.  1.  4  v.  5. 

5  Rev.  xxii.  16.  6  xiii.  8.  ?  v.  9.  »  vii.  13,  14. 

9  Rev.  xi.  15.  10  xix.  10.        "  xix.  16. 


viii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  251 

prophecy,  from  Genesis  to  Daniel,  a  testimony  bearing 
witness  to  Jesus.  It  is  plain,  moreover,  that  the  two 
features  of  the  Godhead  and  of  the  priesthood  of  the 
Messiah,  which  are  more  especially  wrought  out  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  are  contained  in  form  and  essence 
in  the  Eevelation,  as  they  were  implied  in  the  First  Epistle 
of  St.  Peter  and  in  many  of  those  of  St.  Paul.  Though 
this  last  great  anonymous  Epistle  has  expanded  more  fully 
the  priesthood  of  Jesus,  it  has  not,  in  doing  so,  added  any 
new  feature  to  His  character. 

We  are,  therefore,  now  in  a  position  to  survey  as  a  whole 
the  doctrine  or  religion  of  the  Christ,  as  it  is  contained  in 
the  earliest  Christian  writings  we  possess,  and  developed 
by  them  out  of  materials  previously  existing  in  the  sacred 
writings  of  the  Jews. 

And  first,  there  is  the  clear  fact,  not  only  attested  by 
history  but  which  we  must  also  postulate  in  order  to 
account  for  the  phenomena  presented  in  these  writings,  of 
the  human  life  and  death  of  Jesus.  That  human  life  and 
death  is  the  corner-stone  of  their  existence,  which,  without 
it,  would  have  been  impossible.  Secondly,  there  is  the 
fact,  equally  certain,  that  this  same  Jesus  was  proclaimed 
by  men  of  various  minds  and  characters  as  the  Christ,  for 
without  it  also  the  Christian  literature  could  have  had  no 
existence.  Thirdly,  there  is  the  necessary  inference  that 
the  Christ-character  which  He  was  declared  to  have  fulfilled 
was  a  substantive  reality,  not  only  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  received  Him,  but  of  those  also  who  rejected  Him  in 
that  character,  and  consequently  that  this  ideal  conception 
had  been,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  produced  by  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Fourthly,  there  is  the  no  less 
necessary  inference  that  it  was  impossible  for  Jesus  to 
have  been  thus  accepted  in  consequence  of  the  effect  pro- 
duced only  by  His  life  and  death.  We  must  postulate 
other  influences,  which  are  mainly  two, — first,  the  reality  of 


252  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

His  resurrection;  and  secondly,  the  reality  of  the  effects 
which  accompanied  and  followed  His  recognition  as  the 
Christ  in  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  evidence  of  the 
reality  of  this  gift  is  in  our  own  hands,  and  consists  in  the 
existence  of  the  earliest  Christian  literature  embodied  in 
the  New  Testament.  There  is  irresistible  and  conclusive 
evidence  there  of  the  operation  of  a  new  power,  to  which 
there  is  no  complete  analogy  in  the  history  or  literature  of 
the  world,  but  to  which  corroborative  witness  is  borne  even 
in  the  linguistic  phenomena  of  these  writings. 

For  example,  there  is  no  phrase  in  the  Old  Testament 
directly  answering  to  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  New.  We 
have  of  course  such  phrases  as,  the,  Spirit  of  God,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord,  my  Spirit,  and  the  like.  We  have  thy 
Holy  Spirit  once  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm,  and  his  Holy 
Spirit  twice  in  the  sixty-third  of  Isaiah, — but  even  these 
phrases  nowhere  else;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  never  occurs.1 
No  sooner,  however,  do  we  open  these  pages,  than  we 
encounter,  for  the  first  time,  a  new  and  original  phrase, — 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  occurs  repeatedly,  in  all  nearly  a 
hundred  times,  is  found  in  almost  every  book,  and  is  used 
by  every  writer  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  single 
exception  of  St.  James,  who,  however,  as  we  have  seen, 
implies,  in  very  remarkable  words,  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  natural  inference,  therefore,  is,  that 
this  new  phraseology  is  expressive  of  a  new  fact ;  and  we 
know  that  the  Apostles  laid  claim  to  the  bestowal  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  new  gift,  and  appealed  to  it  as  the  most 
convincing  proof  that  their  message  was  a  true  one. 

It  is  surely,  then,  incidental  evidence  of  the  reality  of 

1  In  the  later  Apocryphal  books  we  have  only  in  Wisdom  ix.  1 7 — "  And 
thy  counsel  who  hath  known,  except  thou  give  wisdom,  and  send  thy  Holy 
Spirit  from  above?"  And  in  2  Esdras  xiv.  22:  "But  if  I  have  found 
grace  before  thee,  send  the  Holy  Ghost  into  me."  Cf.  the  statement  of 
St.  John  vii.  39 :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet,  because  that  Jesus  was 
ot  yet  glorified." 


vni.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  253 

the  new  gift  they  claimed  to  bestow,  that  their  writings 
are  so  full  of  allusions  to  it  which  are  couched  in  language 
that  is  also  new.  There  is  nothing  even  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment answering  to  the  continual  reference  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  New.  The  idea  exists  there  in  germ,  as  does 
also  the  idea  of  the  Christ;  but  the  full  development  of 
both  ideas  is  the  great  literary  fact  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  patent  and  demonstrable. 

If,  therefore,  this  new  and  original  gift,  which  was  con- 
fessed alike  by  Jew  and  Gentile,  by  Roman  and  Greek,  by 
Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  and  free,  and  has  left  for  all 
ages  its  indelible  mark  and  its  indestructible  monument 
in  the  literature  of  the  New  Testament,  was,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  product  of  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as 
the  Christ,  and  its  accompaniment; — if,  as  an  historic 
result,  which  there  is  no  denying,  the  confession  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ,  and  that  alone,  was  the  origin  of  this  litera- 
ture, and  the  effects  to  which  it  witnesses — may  we  not 
affirm  that  the  credit  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  is  also 
the  Spirit  of  promise,  is,  in  a  manner,  staked  upon  the 
validity  and  truth  of  that  to  which  He  so  clearly  testified 
— namely,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  chosen  of  God, 
who  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  accord- 
ing to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead.2 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  broad  issue  thus 
presented  is  virtually  independent  of  a  variety  of  questions 
which  may  be  proposed  as  to  the  authorship  and  date  of 
various  books.  The  acknowledged  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are 
themselves  a  mine  of  testimony  to  the  nature  of  early 
Christian  belief,  and  the  facts  on  which  it  rested.  They 
carry  us  back  far  within  the  limits  of  the  generation  in 
which  Jesus  lived  and  died,  and  they  show  the  kind  of 
effect  which  belief  in  Him  had  produced.  Whether  this 

8  Rom.  i.  4. 


254  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

or  that  other  Epistle  is  by  him,  or  when  it  was  written, 
does  not  really  affect  the  main  issue,  which  is  clear  enough 
without.  Putting  the  extreme  case  that  the  name  of  Peter 
has  been  wrongly  affixed  to  the  first  Epistle  bearing  it, 
the  whole  value  of  the  document  as  a  witness  to  Christ 
does  not  turn  upon  that.  We  may  still  believe  that  it 
truly  represents  the  condition  and  faith  of  many  scattered 
throughout Pontus,  Galatia>  Cappadocia,  Asia,and Bithynia? 
who,  being  the  elect  of  God  as  lively  stones  had  been  built  up 
a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ*  The  patent 
phenomena  of  it  as  a  literary  monument  have  still  to  be 
accounted  for.  And  taken  only  as  such  it  is  one  witness 
more  to  the  marvellous  effects  brought  about  by  belief  in 
Jesus  as  the  Christ,  which  from  other  sources  were  suffi- 
ciently plain  already. 

Nor  is  it  possible  that  this  position  can  be  seriously 
affected  by  the  most  that  can  be  made  out  of  the  obvious 
divergencies  of  Christian  teaching,  as,  for  example,  those 
of  St.  James  and  St.  Paul.  It  is  not  the  divergencies  that 
are  the  most  remarkable  feature.  These  exist  in  the 
acknowledged  writings  of  St.  Paul  himself,  and  they  must 
exist  in  the  writings  of  any  man.  The  common  foundation 
of  underlying  fact  that  is  apparent,  and  the  implicit  unity 
of  originating  motive  at  work,  in  both,  are  the  points  of 
real  moment  to  be  observed.  And  these  are  no  less  patent 
in  one  than  in  the  other ;  and  the  conclusion  to  which  they 
lead  us  is  the  same,  that  the  Jesus  who  was  glorified  and 
would  return  to  judgment  was  acknowledged  as  the  Christ, 
and  that  belief  in  Him  was  an  obligation  to  consistent 
holiness  of  life. 

Thus  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  present  us  with 
the  full  development  and  expansion  of  an  idea  which 
existed  in  germ  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  idea,  that  is,  of 
3  1  St.  Peter  i.  1.  *  ii.  5. 


viii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  255 

the  Christ  or  the  Messiah.  The  historic  growth  of  this  idea 
is  distinctly  traceable  in  the  ancient  Scriptures.  The 
earliest  indications  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  Genesis,  the 
latest  in  Daniel,  and  the  post-captivity  prophets.  Each 
successive  stage  of  the  history  and  each  successive  period 
of  the  literature  added  its  own  contribution  to  the  thought, 
till  the  actual  result  of  the  whole  was  the  undefined  and 
yet  definite  expectation  of  the  Messiah  which  was  rife  in 
the  Jewish  nation  long  before  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  era.  As,  however,  it  was  impossible  that  any 
one  element  in  the  Old  Testament  conception  should  have 
been  the  natural  parent  of  any  other, — that  the  fifty-third 
of  Isaiah,  for  instance,  should  have  been  suggested  by  or 
grown  out  of  the  twenty-second  Psalm,  or  Daniel's  pro- 
phecy of  the  Messiah  have  been  originated  by  Jeremiah's 
prediction  of  the  captivity,  or  the  like — so  also  is  it 
impossible  that  all  these  elements  combined  should  have 
created  that  full  development  of  the  conception  which  is 
presented  in  the  collective  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

At  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar  all  that  the 
world  knew  of  this  Messianic  conception  was  contained  in 
the  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  and  the  popular  faith 
derived  from  them.  Within  the  space  of  two  generations 
afterwards,  that  doctrine  of  the  Christ,  as  it  is  contained 
in  the  bulk  of  the  New  Testament  literature,  existed  in  its 
integrity.  That  the  seed  had  expanded  into  the  tree  of 
mighty  growth,  is  an  undoubted  fact  both  of  history  and 
of  literature.  For  it  is  with  literary  monuments  that  we 
are  now  dealing.  The  four  great  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are 
impossible  phenomena  if  they  had  nothing  but  the  Old 
Testament  to  rest  on.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  one  could 
not  have  originated  the  other.  And  yet  the  Pauline 
letters  could  not  have  existed  without  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  Between  these  two  great  literary  facts,  as  an 
inevitable  and  connecting  link,  there  occurred  the  historic 


256  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

fact  of  the  human  life  and  death  of  Jesus.  As  that  human 
life  and  death  can  alone  account  for  the  relation  subsisting 
between  the  two,  so  is  it  also  the  one  historic  and  originat- 
ing cause  without  which  these  Epistles  could  not  have 
existed.  But  the  mere  life  and  death  of  a  Man  who  Him- 
self left  no  abiding  memorial  behind  Him,  could  not, 
together  with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  have 
given  birth  to  a  new  and  unique  literature,  unless  there 
were  elements  in  His  character  and  history  as  unique  as 
the  results  which  they  produced.  That  Jesus  was  the 
Christ  is  the  uniform  and  consistent  testimony  of  the  New 
Testament  writers,  and  the  belief  that  He  was  is  the  only 
occasion  for  their  existence  as  writers.  That  He,  being  the 
Christ  of  prophecy,  contained  in  Himself  the  fulfilment  of 
all  the  past  and  the  promise  of  all  the  future — that  He 
was  at  once  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David,  and  the 
bright  and  morning  star,4  the  realisation  of  the  old  and 
the  inaugurator  of  the  new  dispensation,  the  fountain  of 
eternal  life  and  the  giver  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  thus 
should  have  been  the  adequate  and  sufficient  origin  of 
effects  so  mighty  and  so  marvellous,  is  conceivable;  but 
that  the  effects,  being  no  less  mighty  and  marvellous  than 
they  are,  should  have  been  produced  when  His  alleged 
character  was  a  fiction,  and  His  personal  influence  an  un- 
reality, is  not  conceivable,  and  reduces  us  to  the  necessity 
of  rejecting  a  cause  commensurate  with  the  effect  in  order 
that  we  may  choose  one  which  would  be  altogether  and 
wholly  inadequate. 

As,  moreover,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  unfaltering 
and  decisive  in  their  testimony  to  the  reality  of  the  human 
life  of  Jesus,  so  also  do  they  contain  within  themselves 
the  germ  of  the  perfect  conception  of  His  character  as  the 
Christ.  That  character  is  of  necessity  an  ideal  because  it 
is  a  spiritual  one.  Christ  as  He  was  known  after  the  flesh 

4  Rev.  xxii.  16. 


viii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  257 

was  the  son  of  Mary  who  was  crucified  through  weakness. 
The  conditions  of  His  natural  life  were  confounding  to 
flesh  and  blood,  and  they  culminated  in  the  offence  of  the 
cross.  The  very  assertion  that  He  was  the  Christ  involved 
a  certain  idealisation  of  those  spiritual  functions  the  title 
implied,  wThich  could  not  be  discernible  by  flesh  and  blood. 
The  priesthood  of  Christ,  His  eternal  Sonship,  His  future 
return  to  judgment,  even  His  resurrection  and  ascension, 
to  some  extent  appealed  to  the  imagination  and  to  the 
spiritual  faculties  to  apprehend  them.  They  could  not  be 
the  objects  of  experience  to  the  natural  senses.  Their 
contemplation  involved  the  exercise  of  other  powers.  The 
fact  that  it  was  these  topics  that  the  Epistles  dealt  with, 
would  itself  explain  the  marked  difference  existing  be- 
tween them  and  the  Gospels  or  the  Acts.  The  Christ 
was  of  necessity  an  internal  conception  endued  with  all 
the  glory  and  majesty  which  was  hidden  from  the  natural 
eye  in  the  human  Jesus.  It  was  the  discovery  of  the  one 
in  the  other,  and  the  fulfilment  in  Jesus  of  the  ideal 
character  of  the  Christ  that  produced  the  phenomena  of 
conversion,  and  gave  the  impulse  to  those  mighty  results 
of  which  the  Epistles  themselves  are  the  lasting  monument 
and  the  abiding  proof. 

But  then  these  results  were  the  very  last  that  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament  would  have  produced.  It  was 
the  person  of  Jesus  acting  through  those  Scriptures  that 
produced  the  results.  It  was  His  life,  His  death,  His 
resurrection,  His  ascension,  but  pre-eminently  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  He  promised  to  send,  that  awoke  in  those 
ancient  writings  their  latent  fire,  and  produced,  through 
their  agency  and  through  the  answer  given  to  their  pro- 
phetic promises  and  hopes,  those  phenomena  of  new  and 
spiritual  life  of  which  the  New  Testament  itself  is  the 
greatest  witness. 

And  this  is  what  we  mean  by  the  historic  development 

s 


258  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

of  the  Christ-conception  or  of  the  religion  of  the  Christ. 
Within  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  all  the 
essential  features  of  that  doctrine  or  conception  were  fully 
developed.  Whatever  was  added  afterwards  by  the  Keve- 
lation  of  St.  John,  for  example,  or  by  other  books,  was  not 
a  substantive  addition ;  it  had  existed  long  before  in  the 
faith  of  believers  and  in  the  record  of  their  belief.  This 
is  a  matter  of  history,  resting  upon  documentary  evidence 
which  is  unexceptionable. 

It  is  plain,  moreover,  that  the  effects  which  followed  the 
acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  highest  and  complete  ful- 
filment of  prophecy,  were  not  only  unique  as  a  matter  of 
history,  but  also  that  there  is  no  other  life  or  character 
which  could  have  produced  the  same  results  through  the 
operation  of  the  same  means.  There  is  no  other  person  in 
the  annals  of  history,  who  being  contemplated  in  con- 
nection with  the  same  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  is 
capable  of  producing  such  a  combination  as  would  effect  a 
similar  result.  Nor  have  we  any  reason  to  believe  there 
ever  will  be.  But,  as  an  unquestionable  historic  fact,  these 
great  results  were  the  direct  and  immediate  fruit  of  belief 
in  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  It  is  hard  indeed,  therefore,  to 
resist  the  cogency  of  the  apostolic  assertion  that  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy. 5  We  are  con- 
strained to  acknowledge  that  the  unity  and  completeness 
of  the  full  conception  of  the  Christ,  the  marvellous  way  in 
which  it  fits  into  the  anticipations  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  more  than  fills  up  the  measure  of  its  significance,  and 
yet  from  this  very  fact  could  not  have  been  suggested  by 
those  writings,  as  it  historically  was  not,  is  its  own  wit- 
ness. This  could  not  have  been,  as  it  assuredly  was  not, 
the  work  of  man.  Here,  if  anywhere,  is  to  be  seen  the 
finger  of  God.  By  these  indestructible  facts  of  history  and 
of  literature,  even  more  plainly  than  by  a  voice  from 

5  Kev.  xix.  10. 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  259 

heaven,  He  has  declared  of  Jesus,  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,6  and  has  set  the  seal  of  His 
Divine  approval  to  the  testimony  of  Apostles  and  Evan- 
gelists that  He  was  the  Christ. 

We  are  precluded,  then,  from  regarding  the  Christ-doc- 
trine, even  as  it  is  expressed  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  as  a 
merely  Pauline  conception,  because  some  of  the  most 
essential  features  of  that  doctrine — such  as  the  Messiah- 
ship,  the  glorification,  and  the  future  return  of  Jesus — are 
as  characteristic  of  St.  James  as  they  are  of  St.  Paul ;  and 
because  other  features  no  less  prominent  in  him.  are  com- 
mon with  him  to  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
These  are,  the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  fulfilment 
in  Him  which  that  implied  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Pro- 
phets ;  the  life,  death,  resurrection,  ascension,  and  final 
manifestation  of  Jesus;  His  perpetual  priesthood,  or  the 
mystic  power  to  cleanse  from  sin  involved  and  inherent 
in  His  death ;  the  sanctification  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
was  the  natural  and  yet  the  supernatural  consequence  of 
belief  in  Him ;  and  the  requisite  consistency  in  holiness 
of  life  enjoined  upon  and  commonly  produced  in  those  who 
became  followers  of  Him,  as  well  as  the  union  of  believers 
with  God  and  with  one  another  through  their  union  with 
Him. 

And  to  this  historic  and  literary  development  of  the 
Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  arising  as  it  did  out  of  the  facts  of 
the  life  of  Jesus,  and  the  light  which  was  shed  by  them 
on  the  Scriptures  of  the  Prophets,  we  point  as  a  sufficient 
and  conclusive  evidence  of  its  origin. 

The  variety,  the  independence,  and  the  gradual  deve- 
lopment of  the  materials  existing  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  supplied  the  foundation  of  it,  are  facts  that 
cannot  be  gainsaid.  Neither  can  their  existence,  regarded 
merely  as  literary  phenomena,  be  accounted  for  on  purely 
6  St.  Matt,  iii  17  ;  xvii.  5. 


260  The  Chnst  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

natural  principles.  The  ordinary  impulses  of  human 
authorship  or  flights  of  human  genius  will  not  account 
for  or  explain  the  mysterious  utterances  of  an  Isaiah  or 
a  Zechariah.  There  is  that  in  them  which  no  theory  of 
merely  human  causation  will  resolve.  Each  separate  stage 
in  the  marvellous  growth  is  a  witness  to  the  existence 
of  the  earlier  one,  but  not  the  natural  or  the  necessary 
result  of  it.  Each  individual  writer  stands  out  in  his 
own  clearly-marked  and  characteristic  personality,  spon- 
taneously but  unconsciously  adding  his  own  fragment  to 
the  mass ;  and  not  till  the  last  echoes  of  the  latest  Prophet 
have  died  away  is  the  result  seen  to  be  a  uniform  and 
consistent  whole.  Not  ti]l  the  Son  of  man  has  come,  and 
died  and  risen  and  been  glorified,  is  it  perceived,  because 
before  it  could  not  be,  that  His  portraiture  was  sketched 
of  old  by  the  Prophets. 

And  when  we  come  to  that  life  itself,  it  is  not  till  we 
find  the  impress  of  the  seal  on  the  plastic  clay  of  human 
life  which  has  been  regenerated,  renewed,  and  elevated, 
recreated,  cleansed,  and  glorified,  that  we  discover  what 
the  seal  itself  had  been.  The  death  which  could  commu- 
nicate itself  to  a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature,  and  prove  the 
destruction  of  the  old  man,  could  have  been  no  ordinary 
death.  It  must  have  been  the  death  of  Him  on  whom 
the  Lord  had  laid  the  iniquity  of  us  all,  and  who  had 
made  His  soul  an  offering  for  sin.  The  resurrection  of 
Him  who  had  bestowed  spiritual  life  on  others,  which  had 
brought  forth  such  fruit  in  them  as  the  Epistles  to  Eome 
and  Ephesus  are  samples  of,  must  have  been  itself  a  reality, 
the  demonstration  of  an  inherent  principle  of  eternal  life 
which  was  undying  and  had  cast  out  death.  To  Him  who 
had  shed  forth  on  the  new  society  gifts  of  the  Spirit  so 
unmistakable  and  so  abundant,  the  Spirit  itself  must  have 
been  given  without  measure.  He  had  indeed  received 
gifts  for  men,  yea  even  for  His  enemies,  because  He  had 


viii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  261 

ascended  up  on  high,  and  had  led  captivity  captive,  that 
the  Lord  God  might  dwell  among  them. 

And  lastly,  in  the  historic  development  of  the  religion 
and  doctrine  of  the  Christ,  appearing  as  it  does  first  in  the 
Prophets  in  a  form  inchoate  and  germinal,  next  in  the 
Epistles  in  a  form  fully  matured  and  complete,  and  lastly 
in  the  historic  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  endea- 
vour to  recall  the  image  of  the  living  Jesus  in  the  form  of 
reminiscences  of  an  actual  human  life,  we  have  the  clearest 
possible  proof  of  the  real  origin  of  that  doctrine.  The 
Epistles  of  necessity  presuppose  the  fact  of  a  previously- 
existing  human  life  in  all  material  points  identical  with 
that  portrayed  in  the  Gospels.  It  cannot  be  alleged  that 
these  Epistles  owe  their  existence  to  the  prior  existence  of 
the  Gospels.  On  the  contrary,  they  exhibit  the  central 
fact  of  the  Gospels  in  active  operation,  probably,  or  at 
least  possibly,  long  before  they  were  any  one  of  them 
written.  At  all  events,  their  testimony  is  entirely  inde- 
pendent, as  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  undesigned. 
We  have  then  to  account  for  the  phenomena  they  present 
without  drawing  upon  any  existing  sources,  or  sources 
known  to  have  existed,  except  those  which  already  existed 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 

But  these  of  themselves  are  manifestly  inadequate  to 
account  for  them.  We  must  throw  in  the  human  life  of 
Jesus,  including  the  central  and  essential  facts  of  that  life, 
without  which  it  alone  would  have  been  inadequate  to 
account  for  them.  If  the  Epistles  could  possibly  be  re- 
garded merely  as  the  expression  of  individual  sentiment 
and  opinion,  the  case  would  of  course  be  very  different. 
But  they  cannot  be  so  regarded.  They  are  themselves  the 
evidence  of  certain  facts,  as  also  is  the  personal  history  of 
their  author.  His  early,  no  less  than  his  later  career,  is 
only  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  of  the  reality 
of  the  life  of  Jesus.  His  writings  show  us  that  life,  oper- 


262  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

ating  not  as  a  past  but  as  a  present  influence,  not  only  in 
himself  but  in  others.  They  spring  from  no  morbid  attach- 
ment to  a  dead  man,  but  are  instinct  with  the  Almighty 
power  and  with  the  Divine  Spirit  of  a  risen  and  trium- 
phant Saviour.  Judged,  therefore,  merely  as  literary  re- 
sults, they  can  only  be  assigned  to  delusion  or  to  madness, 
if  their  real  origin  is  not  that  which  it  claims  to  be.  The 
hypothesis  of  delusion  is  untenable,  because  it  demands 
too  wide  an  area.  The  hypothesis  of  madness  was  long 
ago  anticipated  and  precluded  in  a  defence  attributed  to 
the  writer  himself — 1  am  not  mad,  most  noble  Festus,  lut 
speak  forth  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness.'1 

The  historic  development,  therefore,  of  the  Christ-doc- 
trine is  a  manifest  proof  of  the  historic  origin  of  Christi- 
anity, of  that  religion  of  which  it  is  the  essential  basis.  In 
Christianity  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  a  religion 
which  as  a  matter  of  fact  sprang  from  facts,  and  was  based 
upon  the  foundation  of  a  human  life.  All  evidence  is  fatal 
to  the  notion  that  it  was  a  congeries  of  coagulated  senti- 
ment. It  was  no  cobweb  of  fictions  spun  from  the  brain 
of  overwrought  and  deluded  preachers.  We  cannot  trace 
it  home  to  any  such  origin  or  birthplace.  Its  simplest  and 
most  elementary  expression  was  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  And 
this  was  not  only  simple  and  elementary,  but  it  was  essen- 
tial and  uniform.  There  was  and  could  be  no  Christianity 
where  this  expression  did  not  obtain.  If  the  Christ  was 
an  ideal  conception,  it  was  one  which  owed  more  than 
half  its  existence  and  all  its  glory  to  the  realities  of  the 
life  of  Jesus.  That  life  was  the  vital  spark,  which,  falling 
on  the  prepared  substance  of  ancient  prophecy,  produced 
a  conflagration  which  set  the  whole  world  in  a  blaze.  /  am 
come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth,  and  what  will  I  if  it  le  already 
kindled  ?8 

But  that  the  material  was  prepared  beforehand,  was  the 

7  Acts  xxvi.  25.  8  St.  Luke  xii.  49. 


viii.]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  263 

work  of  God,  and  not  of  man,  and  that  the  vital  spark  was 
deposited  in  a  human  life  which  through  death  could  destroy 
him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  is  evidence  that  that 
human  life  was  the  gift  of  God,  and  derived  from  God  as 
no  other  life  could  be.  This  is  my  leloved  Son,  in  whom  I 
am  well  pleased.9  No  other  fact  of  history,  no  other  human 
life,  falling  on  the  same  substance,  could  have  produced 
the  same  result,  nor  would  this  human  life,  falling  upon 
any  similar  substance  not  similarly  prepared.  It  was  the 
union  of  these  two,  but  of  these  two  only,  which  resulted, 
or  could  have  resulted,  in  the  way  it  did. 

What  is  the  inference,  therefore  ? — Verily,  that  the 
expression  Jesus  is  the  Christ  was,  as  the  Apostles  declared 
it  to  be,  and  as  the  Holy  Spirit  testified,  the  utterance  of 
the  truth  of  God.  This  was  the  record  that  God  gave  of 
His  Son. 

But  we  find  in  this  Christ-doctrine  and  Eeligion  of  the 
Christ  not  only  an  evidence  of  its  historic  origin  in  the 
world  of  fact,  but  an  indication  also  of  its  destined  per- 
manence. It  is  independent  alike  of  the  changes  of  for- 
tune and  the  chances  of  time.  Empires  may  dissolve  and 
monarchies  may  fall,  but  this  religion  will  stand.  No 
revelations  of  science  in  the  future  can  reverse  or  unwrite 
the  record  of  the  past,  which  is  deep  graven  in  the  facts 
of  human  literature  and  history.  If  as  a  matter  of  unde- 
niable fact  the  consequence  of  the  proclamation  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ  was  what  we  have  seen  it  to  be,  it  becomes 
impossible  to  imagine  that  the  Christ-doctrine  was  nothing 
more  than  a  temporary  and  a  transient  feature  of  the  move- 
ment. We  cannot  see  in  these  results  a  marked  indication 
of  the  finger  of  God,  a  setting  of  the  seal  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  to  the  truth  of  a  message  proclaimed  in  obedience 
to  the  Divine  will,  and  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  the 
message  was  something  more  than  of  temporary  signifi- 

9  St.  Matt.  xvii.  5. 


264  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

cance  and  of  transient  import.  If  this  was  the  Divine 
message  in  a  way  that  no  other  message  ever  was  Divine, 
then  we  can  hardly  venture  to  affirm  that  the  essential 
terms  of  it  were  in  their  essence  transitory.  We  can 
scarcely  suppose  that  it  will  be  a  matter  of  indifference 
whether  or  not  we  cease  to  regard  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  To 
take  Him  only  as  He  is  known  to  the  wildest  unbelief — 
as  a  human  teacher  of  great  originality,  as  a  successful 
reformer,  as  an  enthusiast  who  was  Himself  the  victim  of 
extraordinary  delusions — will  in  no  degree  be  compatible 
with  the  literary  phenomena  of  the  New  Testament  which 
we  possess  as  the  actual  outcome  and  result  of  His  per- 
sonal influence,  whatever  His  personal  character  may  have 
been.  If  a  similar  estimate  of  the  character  of  St.  Paul  will 
fail  to  account  for  the  remarkable  features  of  the  Pauline 
writings,  still  less  will  this  theory  of  the  character  of 
Jesus  be  consistent  with  those  features,  because  it  implies 
on  His  part  not  only  delusion,  but  deliberate  and  energetic 
deception.  The  centre  of  Pauline  teaching  was  Jesus,  but 
the  centre  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  Himself,  and  every 
estimate  of  His  character  is  inadequate  which  does  not 
recognise  this  fact.  If,  therefore,  we  cannot  have  the 
complete  conception  of  the  Christ-character  without  the 
human  life  of  Jesus,  so  neither  can  we  have  any  adequate 
or  just  notion  of  the  personal  life  of  Jesus  without  the 
essential  elements  of  the  Christ-character  combined  with 
it.  Who  was  Jesus,  if  He  was  not  the  Christ  ?  We  are 
at  a  loss  to  determine.  He  was  an  anomaly  in  human 
history,  standing  out  in  remarkable  relation  to  the  ancient 
literature  and  history  of  His  people,  but  having  nothing 
to  do  with  it,  and  assuredly  not  produced  by  it — shedding 
marvellous  light  on  all  other  times  and  histories,  but  Him- 
self dwelling  in  darkness — undeniably  the  centre  and 
source  of  a  unique  collection  of  writings,  to  which  there 
is  no  approximate  parallel  in  literature,  but  presenting,  in 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  265 

His  own  character,  the  strongest  possible  contrast  to  the 
acknowledged  tendency  of  those  writings,  because  Himself 
indifferent  to  truth  as  a  first  requisite  of  virtue.  If  Jesus 
was  not  what  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles,  agree  in 
confessing  Him  to  have  been,  we  not  only  are  unable  to 
say  what  He  was,  but  are  at  a  loss  to  account  for  their  ex- 
istence as  the  actual  product  of  the  belief  that  He  was 
the  Christ.  On  the  assumption  that  their  combined  testi- 
mony is  true,  His  character  at  once  becomes  consistent 
and  intelligible,  and  their  existence  is  explained.  They 
were  the  substantial  and  permanent  bequest  of  Him  who 
was  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Testament.  They  are  the 
abiding  proof  of  the  reality  and  the  fulfilment  of  that 
promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  He  made  to  His  disciples. 
If  it  is  asked,  How  do  we  know  that  He  made  it,  except 
on  the  authority  of  these  writings  themselves  ?  we  can 
only  reply,  It  is  more  in  accordance  with  reason  to  suppose 
He  did  than  it  is,  judging  from  the  nature  of  the  result 
itself,  to  imagine  that  the  promise  was  invented  to  give 
the  appearance  of  greater  mystery  to  that  which  already 
was  but  too  mysterious ;  to  seem  to  account  for  that  which, 
with  or  without  it,  was  equally  unaccountable. 

The  historic  development,  then,  of  the  doctrine  and 
religion  of  the  Christ  is  a  strong  moral  evidence  of  its 
origin.  It  was  not  invented  by  man.  In  the  highest  and 
truest  sense  it  was  God-given.  It  has  all  the  characteristics 
of  an  actual  and  a  genuine  revelation.  Not  only  was  the 
character  of  Jesus  the  character  of  the  Son  of  God,  but  the 
way  in  which  His  life  gave  vitality  to  the  germinal  elements 
of  the  Christ-idea  latent  in  the  ancient  Scriptures,  and  the 
way  in  which  that  conception  gathered  strength  and  grew, 
as  it  were,  naturally,  and  yet  not  without  an  energy  at 
work  which  was  other  than  natural,  in  the  threefold  and 
mutually  independent  forms  of  correspondence,  history, 
biography,  till,  within  the  period  of  an  ordinary  human 


266  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [LECT. 

lifetime  from  the  death  of  Jesus,  it  had  attained  its  fullest 
development,  and  was  substantially  complete  long  before ; 
and  the  way  in  which  it  wrought,  like  leaven,  in  the  mass 
of  a  decaying  and  corrupt  humanity,  till  the  whole  was 
leavened  and  renewed, — is  the  highest  moral  evidence  we 
can  have  of  the  character  of  the  energy  at  work,  and  of  the 
nature  of  the  Will  whose  operation  it  revealed. 

No  mere  worship  of  humanity  unredeemed  and  unre- 
generate  can  aspire  to  supersede  the  religion  of  Jesus  as 
the  Christ ;  no  vague  residuum  of  the  various  religions  of 
the  world,  reduced  to  their  common  elements  of  morality 
and  truth,  can  hope  to  supplant  this,  for  it  is  possessed  of 
special  characteristics  which  mark  it  out  as  separate  from 
all.  No  other  religion  has  an  origin  so  distinct  and  mani- 
fest as  this.  No  other  faith  has  the  evidence  of  an  inherent 
vitality  like  this.  No  other  has  the  promise  or  the  prospect 
of  permanence  like  this.  No  other  is  capable  of  producing 
fruits  that  redound  so  much  to  the  glory  of  God  and  to  the 
good  of  man  as  this.  No  other  religion  may  so  fitly  be  called 
Divine,  or  so  justly  be  attributed  to  God,  as  this ;  for  none 
can  so  clearly  establish  her  credentials  or  make  good  her 
claim. 

It  is  no  question,  however,  of  mere  superiority  between 
this  religion  and  any  other.  If  Christianity  is  true,  that 
is  to  say  if  the  religion  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  is  true,  it  is 
true  as  no  other  is  true.  If  God  has  indeed  set  His  seal 
to  this  religion,  He  has  set  it  in  a  way  that  He  has  not  set 
it  to  any  other.  No  other  religion  but  this,  saving  only 
that  from  which  it  sprang,  which  must  stand  or  fall  with 
it,  can  point  to  anything  like  the  same  pedigree  of  fact. 
No  other  religion  but  these  which  are  virtually  both  one 
as  regards  their  origin,  can  point  to  monuments  so  enduring, 
so  remarkable,  so  sublime,  so  holy.  Heaven  and  earth  shall 
pass  away  ;  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away?  was  a  bold 
1  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  35 ;  St.  Luke  xxi.  33. 


VIIL]  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  267 

and  magnificent  challenge ;  but  it  was  something  more,  for 
it  was  a  challenge,  daring  as  it  was,  which  may  be  safely 
left  to  vindicate  and  prove  itself. 

Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
life?  is  language  that  was  addressed  to  Jesus,  and  which 
can  be  addressed  to  no  human  teacher.  We  may  be  un- 
certain as  to  its  propriety  when  addressed  to  Him ;  but  we 
can  scarcely  venture  to  address  such  words  to  any  other. 
He  is  either  worthy  of  them,  or  He  is  not ;  if  He  is  not, 
then  there  is  no  one  else  that  we  can  name  in  comparison 
of  Him ;  but  if  He  is  worthy  of  them,  then  let  us  go  to 
Him  ourselves  with  them.  Let  us  make  them  our  own. 
Let  us  give  ourselves  in  heart  and  soul  and  mind  and 
strength  to  Him.  Let  us  go  to  Him  for  the  life  which  He 
alone  can  give,  for  the  pardon  of  all  the  sinful  past,  for  the 
light  of  the  darkened  present,  for  the  hope  of  the  endless 
future.  Let  us  resolve  that,  while  many  are  falling  away, 
and  some  are  making  shipwreck  of  faith,  and  some  are 
tossed  to  and  fro  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  and  some 
have  no  steadfastness  and  no  hope,  and  some  are  without 
God  in  the  world,  and  while  times  are  changing  and  things 
temporal  are  passing  away,  and  things  eternal,  are  hastening 
on  and  drawing  near,  it  shall  be  ours  to  cling  fast  to  Jesus 
as  the  Christ,  the  chosen  of  God — to  serve  Him  in  health 
and  strength,  when  all  is  bright  and  joyous,  and  the  powers 
are  vigorous  and  unimpaired,  and  to  trust  Him  in  the  time 
of  trouble  when  days  are  dark  and  dreary,  and  to  believe 
in  Him  to  the  saving  of  the  soul  now  and  when  the  solemn 
hour  of  departure  is  at  hand.  There  is  no  other  friend  but 
He  who  will  not  fail  us  now.  There  is  no  other  friend  but 
He  whom  we  can  dare  to  trust  then ;  for  He  alone  hath  the 
promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to 
come. 

Let  us  then  not  be  too  proud  or  too  cold  or  too  frivolous 

8  St.  John  vi.  68. 


268  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books.  [vin. 

to  adopt  the  conclusion  of  the  men  of  Samaria —  We  know 
that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  World;3 
but  with  the  fixed  assurance  that  what  is  thus  true  once 
must  inevitably  be  true  for  ever,  let  us  go  to  Jesus  ourselves, 
with  the  noble,  the  generous,  the  sublime  confession  of 
Simon  Peter,  and  say  to  Him,  as  the  heart-felt  utterance 
of  our  own  personal  conviction  and  unchanging  faith,  We 
believe,  and  are  sure,  that  thou  art  that  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.4" 

3  St.  John  iv.  42.  4  vi.  69. 


Itaque  Tu  Pater,  qui  lucem  visibilem  primitias  creaturce  dedisti,  et 
lucem  Intellectualem  ad  fastigium  operum  tuorum  in  faciem  hominis 
inspirasti ;  Opus  hoc,  quod  a  tua  bonitate  profectum,  tuam  gloriam 
repetit,  tuere  et  rege.  Tu  postquam  conversus  es  ad  spectandum  opera 
quce  fecerunt  manus  tuce,  vidisti  quod  omnia  essent  bona  vald& ;  et 
requievisti.  At  homo  conversus  ad  opera  quce  fecerunt  manus  SUCK,  vidit 
quod  omnia  essent  vanitas  et  vexatio  spiritus ;  nee  ullo  modo  requievit. 
Quare  si  in  operibus  tuis  sudabimus,  fades  nos  visionis  tuce  et  Sabbati 
tui  participes.  Supplices  petimus,  ut  hcec  mens  nobis  constet :  utque 
novis  eleemosynis  per  manus  nostras  et  aliorum,  quibus  eandem  mentem 
largieris,  familiam  humanam  dotatam  velis. 


THE    END. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


PFC'D  L.O 

MAR  181960 


LD  21A-50m-4,'59 
(A1724slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


